Search

For more than two decades, regulatory agencies throughout the world released guidelines, rules and laws to stimulate and assist in paediatric drug development. In 2014, the National Health and Family Planning Commission (now known as the National Health Commission, NHC) and five other departments in China jointly issued 'Several Opinions on Safeguarding Medication for Children', after which several policies and regulations were issued to implement the priority review and approval of paediatric medicinal products and support the development of new drugs, including new dosage forms and strengths, for children. A total of 172 special medicinal products for children were approved from 2018 to 2022. Since 2016, the NHC, together with relevant administrative departments, has formulated and issued four paediatric drug lists containing 129 medicinal products to encourage research and development. At present, approximately 25 of these drugs (at exactly the same dosage forms and strengths as on the lists) have been approved for marketing, including antitumour drugs and immunomodulators, nervous system drugs, drugs for mental disorders and drugs for rare diseases. In this review, we analysed the regulations issued for promoting paediatric drug development in China, including the priority review and approval system, technical guidelines, data protection and financial support policies and general profiles of paediatric drug approval, clinical trials and the addition of information for children in the labels of marketed medicinal products. Finally, we discussed the challenges and possible strategies in the research and development of paediatric drugs in China., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Optimized dosages provide a secure foundation for the development of well-tolerated and effective oncology drugs. Project Optimus, an initiative within the Oncology Center of Excellence, strives to reform the dosage optimization and dosage selection paradigm in oncology. This initiative stems from the availability of targeted drugs and from the demand for more tolerable dosages from patients, caregivers, and advocates. Reforming dosage optimization for oncology drugs requires a paradigm shift from the one employed for cytotoxic chemotherapy to one that understands and considers the unique attributes of targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and cellular therapy. Limited characterization of dosage during drug development may result in (1) patients not staying on a therapy long-term due to poor tolerability, (2) failure to establish positive benefit-risk in clinical trials for regulatory approval (3) withdrawal of drugs from the market (4) removal of indications of drugs from the market. Timely access to drugs is important for all patients with cancer, so it is vital to iteratively analyze all nonclinical and clinically relevant data at each stage of development and leverage quantitative approaches, innovative trial designs, and regulatory support to arrive at dosages with favorable benefit-risk. This review highlights the key challenges and opportunities to embracing this new paradigm and realizing the full potential of new oncology therapies., (Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

The ICH E17 guidelines (2014-2017) on Multiregional Clinical Trials (MRCT) was a joint effort by the regulators and industry to facilitate simultaneous global drug development and registration through taking a strategic approach for clinical trials. In other words, the objective was to reduce the time it takes to bringing medications to patients around the world through minimizing unnecessary duplication of local or regional studies, which may add the regulatory burden to cost and time of bringing new therapies to patients. Under the auspices of ICH, training materials were created and provided to various stakeholders. Despite the successful promotion of the benefits of ICH E17 MRCT guidelines across the different regions, the uptake of some concepts (e.g., pooling strategy) in the ICH E17 guidelines has been slow. This paper describes various factors which could affect the conduct of MRCT at a global level, including ambiguity in definition of "region" (in MRCT), new regulatory requirements to enroll a diverse patient population, the use of decentralized clinical trials, use of data sources other than randomized clinical trials (e.g., use of Real Word Data), and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the conduct of MRCT., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Drug Information Association, Inc.)

In May 2022, there is an International Regulatory and Pharmaceutical Industry (Innovation and Quality [IQ] Microphysiological Systems [MPS] Affiliate) Workshop on the standardization of complex in vitro models (CIVMs) in drug development. This manuscript summarizes the discussions and conclusions of this joint workshop organized and executed by the IQ MPS Affiliate and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A key objective of the workshop is to facilitate discussions around opportunities and/or needs for standardization of MPS and chart potential pathways to increase model utilization in the context of regulatory decision making. Participation in the workshop included 200 attendees from the FDA, IQ MPS Affiliate, and 26 global regulatory organizations and affiliated parties representing Europe, Japan, and Canada. It is agreed that understanding global perspectives regarding the readiness of CIVM/MPS models for regulatory decision making and potential pathways to gaining acceptance is useful to align on globally. The obstacles are currently too great to develop standards for every context of use (COU). Instead, it is suggested that a more tractable approach may be to think of broadly applicable standards that can be applied regardless of COU and/or organ system. Considerations and next steps for this effort are described., (© 2023 Wiley‐VCH GmbH.)

A recent industry perspective published in this journal describes the benefits received by drug companies from participation in the MIDD Pilot Program. Along with the primary objectives of supporting good decision-making in drug development, there were substantial savings in time and development costs. Furthermore, many sponsors reported qualitative benefits such as new learnings and clarity on MIDD strategies and methodology that could be applied to other development programs. Based on the success of the Pilot Program, the FDA recently announced the continuation of the MIDD Paired Meeting Program as part of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII). In this report, we describe the collective experiences of industry participants in the MIDD Program to date, including all aspects of the process from meeting request submission to follow-up actions. The purpose is to provide future participants with information to optimize the value of the MIDD Program., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to technology capable of mimicking human cognitive functions and has important applications across all sectors and industries, including drug development. This has considerable implications for the regulation of drug development processes, as it is expected to transform both the way drugs are brought to market and the systems through which this process is controlled. There is currently insufficient evidence in published literature of the real-world applications of AI. Therefore, this narrative review investigated, collated, and elucidated the applications of AI in drug development and its regulatory processes., Methods: A narrative review was conducted to ascertain the role of AI in streamlining drug development and regulatory processes., Findings: The findings of this review revealed that machine learning or deep learning, natural language processing, and robotic process automation were favored applications of AI. Each of them had considerable implications on the operations they were intended to support. Overall, the AI tools facilitated access and provided manageability of information for decision-making across the drug development lifecycle. However, the findings also indicate that additional work is required by regulatory authorities to set out appropriate guidance on applications of the technology, which has critical implications for safety, regulatory process workflow and product development costs., Implications: AI has adequately proven its utility in drug development, prompting further investigations into the translational value of its utility based on cost and time saved for the delivery of essential drugs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the safety and quality of drugs and vaccines that are used in the U.S. Administration of the FDA falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The regulatory oversight of the FDA is complex and comprehensive, requiring the various roles and responsibilities to be divided across six main centers. The activities of two of these centers, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) are the primary focus of this review., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.)

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.)

Despite >1 in 5 children taking prescription drugs in the United States, off-label drug use is common. To increase the study of drugs in children, regulatory bodies have enacted legislation to incentivize and require pediatric drug studies. As a result of this legislation, novel trial approaches, and an increase in personnel with pediatric expertise, there have been numerous advancements in pediatric drug development. With this review, we aim to highlight developments in pediatric pharmacology over the past 6 years for the most common disease processes that may be treated pharmacologically by the pediatric primary care provider. Using information extracted from label changes between 2018 and 2023, the published literature, and Clinicaltrials.gov, we discuss advances across multiple therapeutic areas relevant to the pediatric primary care provider, including asthma, obesity and related disorders, mental health disorders, infections, and dermatologic conditions. We highlight instances in which new drugs have been developed on the basis of a deeper mechanistic understanding of illness and instances in which labels have been expanded in older drugs on the basis of newly available data. We then consider additional factors that affect pediatric drug use, including cost and nonpharmacologic therapies. Although there is work to be done, efforts focused on pediatric-specific drug development will increase the availability of evidence-based, labeled guidance for commonly prescribed drugs and improve outcomes through the safe and effective use of drugs in children., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

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.)

Pharmaceutical development is a highly regulated industry through numerous worldwide guidance, laws, and regulations. Issues related to the safety of pharmaceutical products have been the most common cause of withdrawals from the market, as well as restrictions on distribution and limitations on labeling. Collaboration (hereafter referred to as partnership) between pharmaceutical companies in drug development has been recognized as critically significant to maximize the efficiency of drug development. In general, pharmaceutical companies might benefit from partnering in conducting pharmacovigilance (PV) activities, resulting in enhanced safety monitoring, improved clinical outcomes, and support of optimal benefit-risk assessment. However, some challenges exist. Differences between partners in strategy, culture, and processes can impact the harmonization of safety practices and decision-making processes, necessitating open communications and consensus-building to effectively address safety concerns. Both successful and unsuccessful partnership attempts within the pharmaceutical industry provide valuable business cases and lessons for the future. This paper sheds light on some of the critical aspects of PV in partnerships within the pharmaceutical industry. It addresses issues of the benefits and risks of partnerships, regulatory/legal expectations, and best practices for safety teams' integration., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Children were often referred to as "therapeutic orphans" in the past due to different reasons such as ethical, regulatory, economic, scientific, etc., ones. They were exposed to avoidable risks while missing out on therapeutic advances. Pediatric patients have suffered from a lack of scientific and regulatory standards (e.g., proper drug testing, authorization of medicines for their use, etc.), although the pharmaceutical legislative framework, which ensures the high standards of safety, quality, and efficacy of medicinal products for use in adults, was developed primarily in response to past "drug disasters," mainly involving children. The adoption of pediatric regulatory initiatives first in the USA and then in Europe and other countries and regions has significantly changed the worldwide frameworks and permanently changed pediatric drug research and development. This article tries to give various perspectives with historical context, a review of the different challenges and opportunities as well as important stakeholders in pediatric drug development. The pediatric trial networks are probably the most important stakeholder that enables efficient patient recruitment, access to better resource utilization, and global collaboration of different stakeholders necessary for performing quality and well-designed clinical trials., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

The role and value of statistical contributions in drug development up to the point of health authority approval are well understood. But health authority approval is only a true 'win' if the evidence enables access and adoption into clinical practice. In today's complex and evolving healthcare environment, there is additional strategic evidence generation, communication, and decision support that can benefit from statistical contributions. In this article, we describe the history of medical affairs in the context of drug development, the factors driving post-approval evidence generation needs, and the opportunities for statisticians to optimize evidence generation for stakeholders beyond health authorities in order to ensure that new medicines reach appropriate patients., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The process of developing and marketing new pharmaceuticals in the United States is driven by a need to maximize returns to shareholders. This results all too often in the production of new medications that are expensive and of marginal value to patients and society. In line with our heightened awareness of the importance of social justice and public health-and in light of our government's alliance with private companies in bringing us COVID-19 vaccines-we need to reconsider how new pharmaceuticals are developed and distributed. Accordingly, we propose the creation of a new agency of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that would direct the whole process. This agency would fund the research and development of high-value medications, closely monitor the clinical studies of these new drugs, and manage their distribution at prices that are value-based, fair, and equitable.

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests.

The objective of this review article is to summarize literature data pertinent to potential excipient effects on intestinal drug permeability and transit. Despite the use of excipients in drug products for decades, considerable research efforts have been directed towards evaluating their potential effects on drug bioavailability. Potential excipient concerns stem from drug formulation changes (e.g., scale-up and post-approval changes, development of a new generic product). Regulatory agencies have established in vivo bioequivalence standards and, as a result, may waive the in vivo requirement, known as a biowaiver, for some oral products. Biowaiver acceptance criteria are based on the in vitro characterization of the drug substance and drug product using the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS). Various regulatory guidance documents have been issued regarding BCS-based biowaivers, such that the current FDA guidance is more restrictive than prior guidance, specifically about excipient risk. In particular, sugar alcohols have been identified as potential absorption-modifying excipients. These biowaivers and excipient risks are discussed here. Graphical Abstract., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The continuous scientific, societal, and technological advancements have shifted drug development toward increasingly complex and ever more targeted treatments. This creates new and unprecedented challenges for global regulatory systems. To address the increased risks and uncertainties of increasingly complex medicine, we advocate for a more tailored and flexible regulatory approach, which is explained here with the concept of 'regulatory density'. In the context of this paper, 'regulatory density' describes the relative amount of obligatory standards, measures and procedures applied to certain medicinal products or product classes and the resources required to meet these requirements. Given that risk and uncertainty are dynamic variables that can change over time, with this paper, we want to stimulate (re)thinking of regulatory approaches for managing the challenges of future complex medicines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The European Union's Pediatric Regulation has strengthened the development of medicines for children in Europe through its system of obligations and rewards. However, opportunities remain to further optimize pediatric medicine developments, notably in relation to the implementation of the regulatory framework. This paper therefore describes bottlenecks identified by industry that occur during the medicinal development process, including those relating to the scientific advice process, pediatric investigation plan (PIP) development, compliance checks, and study submissions, and offers some considerations and insights to address these. Considerations, which are workable within the current legislative framework, focus on an integrated scientific discussion, optimization of PIP procedures and compliance checks, and an alignment of study-reporting requirements., (© 2021 Sanofi. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Objectives: To describe the main features of a pharmaceutical market in which the duration of guaranteed monopoly periods would correspond to a new pharmaceutical product's value., Methods: After reviewing patent and regulatory exclusivity-based mechanisms for protecting prescription drug markets from competition to incentivize drug innovation in developed countries, we model market protection mechanisms within the current framework to give the longest-lasting market protections to drug developers that bring the most affordable products to market with highest public health and clinical value., Results: An approach tying pharmaceutical market exclusivity to value would have 3 main features. First, it would be based on regulatory exclusivity (ie, the drug regulator refrains from authorizing generic entry for a certain amount of time), rather than patents. Second, the duration of exclusivity period would be pegged to the magnitude of a product's anticipated health impact and its proposed price by using modified methods from the field of health technology assessment. Third, the duration of the value-based exclusivity period would be reassessed routinely 3 years after the product's launch to account for its real-world effectiveness., Conclusions: Linking a drug's proposed price to the duration of its regulatory-based exclusivities would both incentivize the development of high impact, low-cost products and motivate drug developers to introduce these products at lower prices., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

For nearly 2 decades, regulators have adopted a harmonized approach to drug development, which has succeeded in bringing new pharmaceuticals to market without significant cardiac liability. Ushered in by technological advancements and better understanding of cellular electrophysiology, the initial paradigm detailed in the 2005 International Conference for Harmonization E14 and S7B documents has undergone evolutionary changes designed to streamline drug development and improve regulatory decision-making and product labeling. The intent of this review is to summarize the new US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Question and Answer update from August 2020 and key messaging from a subsequent FDA webinar describing best practices for preclinical and clinical data integration into a QT risk prediction model., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Pediatric physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models have broad application in the drug development process and are being used not only to project doses for clinical trials but increasingly to replace clinical studies. However, the approach has yet to become fully integrated in regulatory submissions. Emerging data support an expanded integration of the PBPK model informed approach in regulatory guidance on pediatrics. Best practice standards are presented for further development through interaction among regulators, industry, and model providers., (© 2021 The Authors. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

The value of in silico methods in drug development and evaluation has been demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly. While their benefits are now unanimously recognized, international standards for their evaluation, accepted by all stakeholders involved, are still to be established. In this white paper, we propose a risk-informed evaluation framework for mechanistic model credibility evaluation. To properly frame the proposed verification and validation activities, concepts such as context of use, regulatory impact and risk-based analysis are discussed. To ensure common understanding between all stakeholders, an overview is provided of relevant in silico terminology used throughout this paper. To illustrate the feasibility of the proposed approach, we have applied it to three real case examples in the context of drug development, using a credibility matrix currently being tested as a quick-start tool by regulators. Altogether, this white paper provides a practical approach to model evaluation, applicable in both scientific and regulatory evaluation contexts., (© 2021 The Authors. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Obstetrical complications, often referred to as the "great obstetrical syndromes," are among the most common global causes of mortality and morbidity in young women and their infants. However, treatments for these syndromes are underdeveloped compared with other fields of medicine and are urgently needed. This current paucity of treatments for obstetrical complications is a reflection of the challenges of drug development in pregnancy. The appetite of pharmaceutical companies to invest in research for obstetrical syndromes is generally reduced by concerns for maternal, fetal, and infant safety, poor definition, and high-risk regulatory paths toward product approval. Notably, drug candidates require large investments for development with an unguaranteed return on investment. Furthermore, the discovery of promising drug candidates is hampered by a poor understanding of the pathophysiology of obstetrical syndromes and their uniqueness to human pregnancies. This limits translational extrapolation and de-risking strategies in preclinical studies, as available for other medical areas, compounded with limited fetal safety monitoring to capture early prenatal adverse reactions. In addition, the ethical review committees are reluctant to approve the inclusion of pregnant women in trials, and in the absence of regulatory guidance in obstetrics, clinical development programs are subject to unpredictable regulatory paths. To develop effective and safe drugs for pregnancy complications, substantial commitment, and investment in research for innovative therapies are needed in parallel with the creation of an enabling ethical, legislative, and guidance framework. Solutions are proposed to enable stakeholders to work with a common set of expectations to facilitate progress in this medical discipline. Addressing this significant unmet need to advance maternal and possibly perinatal health requires the involvement of all stakeholders and specifically patients, couples, and clinicians facing pregnancy complications in the dearth of appropriate therapies. This paper focused on the key pharmaceutical research and development challenges to achieve effective and safe treatments for obstetrical syndromes., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rational prescribing of medicines requires evidence from clinical trials on efficacy, safety and the dose to be prescribed, based on clinical trials. Regulatory authorities assess these data and information is included in the approved summary of product characteristics. Regulatory guidelines on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the paediatric population generally propose that studies are done in defined age groups but advise that any classification of the paediatric population into age categories is to some extent arbitrary or that the age groups are intended only as a guide. The pharmaceutical companies tend to plan their studies using age groups the regulatory guidelines suggest, to avoid problems when applying for marketing authorisation. These age bands end up in the paediatric label, and consequently into national paediatric formularies. The age bands of the most commonly used age-subsets: neonates, infant/toddlers, children and adolescents, are more historical than based on physiology or normal development of children. Particularly problematic are the age bands for neonates and adolescents. The age of 12 years separating children from adolescents, and the upper limit of the adolescents set by the definition of paediatric age in healthcare, which varies according to the region, are particularly questionable. Modern pharmacometric methods (modelling and simulation) are being increasingly used in paediatric drug development and may allow assessment of growth and/or development as continuous covariables. Maybe time has come to reconsider the rational of the currently used age bands., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Pregnant and lactating women are considered "therapeutic orphans" because they generally have been excluded from clinical drug research and the drug development process owing to legal, ethical, and safety concerns. Most medications prescribed for pregnant and lactating women are used "off-label" because most of the clinical approved medications do not have appropriate drug labeling information for pregnant and lactating women. Medications that lack human safety data on use during pregnancy and lactation may pose potential risks for adverse effects in pregnant and lactating women as well as risks of teratogenic effects to their unborn and newborn babies. Federal policy requiring the inclusion of women in clinical research and trials led to considerable changes in research design and practice. Despite more women being included in clinical research and trials, the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in drug research and clinical trials remains limited. A recent revision to the "Common Rule" that removed pregnant women from the classification as a "vulnerable" population may change the culture of drug research and drug development in pregnant and lactating women. This review article provides an overview of medications studied by the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Units Network and Centers and describes the challenges in current obstetrical pharmacology research and alternative strategies for future research in precision therapeutics in pregnant and lactating women. Implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women can provide legislative requirements and opportunities for research focused on pregnant and lactating women., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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.)

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).)

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.)

This minireview addresses problems of financing the vaccine development, regulatory questions, the ethics and efficacy of vaccine prioritization strategies and the coverage of variant viruses by current vaccines. Serious adverse effects observed with adenovirus vectored vaccines and mRNA vaccines in mass vaccination campaigns are reported. The ethical problems of continuing with placebo controlled vaccine trials and alternative clinical trial protocols are discussed as well as concrete vaccination issues such as the splitting of doses, the delaying of the second dose, the immunization with two different vaccine types and the need of vaccinating seropositive subjects. Strategies to increase vaccine acceptance in the population are shortly mentioned., (© 2021 Society for Applied Microbiology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

As part of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VI commitments, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) are conducting a model-informed drug development (MIDD) pilot program. Sponsor(s) who apply and are selected will be granted meetings that aim to facilitate the application of MIDD approaches throughout the product development lifecycle and the regulatory process. Due to their complex mechanisms of action and limited clinical experience, cell and gene therapies have the potential to benefit from the application of MIDD methods, which may facilitate their safety and efficacy evaluations. Leveraging data that are generated from all stages of drug development into appropriate modeling and simulation techniques that inform decisions remains challenging. Additional discussions regarding the application of quantitative modeling approaches to drug development decisions, such as through the MIDD pilot program, may be crucial for both the sponsor(s) and regulatory review teams. Here, we share some perspectives on the opportunities and challenges for utilizing MIDD approaches for product review, which we hope will encourage investigators to publish their experiences and application of MIDD in gene therapy product development., (Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

The use of targeted small-molecule therapeutics and immunotherapeutics has been limited to date in pediatric oncology. Recently, the number of pediatric approvals has risen, and regulatory initiatives in the United States and Europe have aimed to increase the study of novel anticancer therapies in children. Challenges of drug development in children include the rarity of individual cancer diagnoses and the high prevalence of difficult-to-drug targets, including transcription factors and epigenetic regulators. Ongoing pediatric adaptation of biomarker-driven trial designs and further exploration of agents targeting non-kinase drivers constitute high-priority objectives for future pediatric oncology drug development. SIGNIFICANCE: Increasing attention to drug development for children with cancer by regulators and pharmaceutical companies holds the promise of accelerating the availability of new therapies for children with cancer, potentially improving survival and decreasing the acute and chronic toxicities of therapy. However, unique approaches are necessary to study novel therapies in children that take into account low patient numbers, the pediatric cancer genomic landscape and tumor microenvironment, and the need for pediatric formulations. It is also critical to evaluate the potential for unique toxicities in growing hosts without affecting the pace of discovery for children with these life-threatening diseases., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The urgency and impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are changing global drug development and regulatory processes. The need for speed to understand the virus and develop new vaccines, medicines, and therapies for patients has provided unprecedented learning opportunities and revealed how the pharmaceutical industry can improve upon traditional processes. To stay competitive while remaining compliant with agency regulations and guidance, companies need to implement new process/tools that allow for more flexible work models, consider expanding the use of decentralized/hybrid trials, and capitalize on the use of real-world evidence (RWE) and cloud-based data systems. In addition, regulatory agencies should retain the agility exhibited during current reviews of potential new therapies, applying this momentum to other areas of unmet medical need. Further, agencies should consider a globally acceptable application platform. This article, by the Pharmaceuticals' Head of Regulatory Affairs at Bayer AG, examines how impacts of the COVID-19 crisis will continue beyond the pandemic period to the benefit of patients, drug developers, regulators, clinicians, and caregivers.

A key goal of regulatory agencies for medical products is to make innovative products available to patients and the medical community in a timely manner in order to improve the quality of public health and health care. Thus, regulators must respond quickly to emerging technologies. It is a horizon scanning method, based on which the Japanese regulatory agency will have the expertise prior to review of forthcoming products of evolving technologies., (© 2020 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2020 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

One of the factors responsible for lack of reproducible findings may be attributed to the raw material used. To date, there are no apparent studies examining reproducibility using venoms for the development of new toxin-based drugs with respect to regulatory agencies' policies. For this reason, protocols were implemented to produce animal toxins with quality, traceability, and strict compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices. This required validation of the production chain from the arrival of the animal to the vivarium, followed by handling, housing, as well as compliance with respect to extraction, freeze-drying, and, finally, storage protocols, aimed at generating compounds to serve as candidate molecules applicable in clinical trials. Currently, to produce quality snake venoms to support reproductive studies, the Center for the Study of Venoms and Venomous Animals (CEVAP) from São Paulo State University (UNESP), São Paulo, Brazil has 449 microchipped snakes through rigid and standardized operating procedures for safety, health, and welfare of animals. Snakes were frequently subjected to vet clinical examination, anthelmintic, and antiparasitic treatment. Venom milk used to destroy prey was collected from each animal in individual plastic microtubes to avoid contamination and for traceability. In addition, venoms were submitted to microbiological, and biochemical toxicological analyses. It is noteworthy that investigators are responsible for caring, maintaining, and manipulating snakes and ensuring their health in captivity. This review aimed to contribute to the pharmaceutical industry the experimental experience and entire snake venom production chain required to generate quality products for therapeutic human consumption.

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.