Search

Neonatal care needs more robust guidance on pharmacotherapy, (formulation, dosage regimen, safety and efficacy information). This requires structured advocacy. We therefore discuss advocacy related to improving information about medicines including current practices, clinical trials, the current setting, and trial preparedness. This steps can improve neonatal drug development by generating evidence, particularly if a programmatic approach (identify dosing, eligibility criteria, and outcomes) to evidence generation is followed. Trial design should be guided by the intended use of the medicine and the benefits/risks that the study participant is exposed to. Regulatory trials (explanatory, controlled environment, internal validity, endpoints reflect clinically important outcomes, strong causal evidence) are sometimes necessary. However, some research questions are best addressed with informative trials. In either case, trial design can be supported by real world data and evidence, extrapolation from other subpopulations, or physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling. Data management, safety reporting, and management of drugs should be specified and proportionate. Trial design and conduct also necessitate awareness of Good Clinical Practice specific to neonates. Relevant aspects include protocol and trial design, research skills and interactions with Ethics Committees or Institutional Research Boards, capacities and competences needed within the research team, and aspects related to consent and recruitment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The research activities of A. Smits are supported by a Senior Clinical Investigatorship of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) (18E2H24N)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Neurosciences clinical trials continue to have notoriously high failure rates. Appropriate outcomes selection in early clinical trials is key to maximizing the likelihood of identifying new treatments in psychiatry and neurology. The field lacks good standards for designing outcome strategies, therefore The Outcomes Research Group was formed to develop and promote good practices in outcome selection. This article describes the first published guidance on the standardization of the process for clinical outcomes in neuroscience. A minimal step process is defined starting as early as possible, covering key activities for evidence generation in support of content validity, patient-centricity, validity requirements and considerations for regulatory acceptance. Feedback from expert members is provided, regarding the risks of shortening the process and examples supporting the recommended process are summarized. This methodology is now available to researchers in industry, academia or clinics aiming to implement consensus-based standard practices for clinical outcome selection, contributing to maximizing the efficiency of clinical research., Competing Interests: Disclosures Silvia Zaragoza Domingo Developed EPICOG-SCH Brief Cognitive Battery in Schizophrenia and provided services as consultant to pharma industry (Sanofi-Genzyme and Jazz Pharmaceuticals in different periods 2018-23). Jordi Alonso, Montserrat Ferrer, Peter Annas, Chris Edgar, Manuel de Gracia, Georg Dorffner, Brian Harel, Jan Kottner, Amy Pinkham and Daniella Tinoco, Maria T. Acosta, Larry Alphs, John Harrison and Judith Jaeger have no conflicts of interest. For Florence Butlen-Ducuing and Pavel Balabanov, the views expressed in this document are the personal views of the authors and may not be understood or quoted as being made for or reflecting the position of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or any of its committees or working parties. Anna-Karin Berger is employed by Lundbeck A/S. Kim I. Bishop is the principal of Global Pharma Consultancy, LLC, a provider of CNS and cognitive psychopharmacology services with a particular focus on executive functioning. William P. Horan is an employee of and holds equity in Karuna Therapeutics. Christian Yavorksy is the Chief Scientific Officer at Valis Bioscience and reports no conflicts of interest. Monica Vance is the Chief Executive Officer of Santium Media Corporation and reports no conflicts of interest, (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The International Council on Harmonisation E8 Guidance Revision 1 (ICH E8(R1)) calls for creating a Culture of Quality that "values and rewards critical thinking and open, proactive dialogue about what is critical to quality." Across the biopharma landscape, clinical sites, sponsors, and service providers are working to translate this far-reaching guideline into working practices. This manuscript deconstructs key elements that comprise the critical thinking and open, proactive Culture of Quality "enablers." In addition, maturity models are provided so readers can visualize what a Culture of Quality looks like in their clinical research organization. These provide examples of high performing cultures of quality and useful tools for teams or organizations to measure and evolve their respective quality cultures., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Breast cancer treatments have evolved rapidly, and clinically meaningful biomarkers have been used to guide therapy. These biomarkers hold utility within the drug development process to increase the efficiency and effectiveness. To this purpose, the US FDA developed an evidentiary framework. Literature searches conducted of literature published between 2016 and 2022 identified biomarkers in breast cancer. These biomarkers were reviewed for drug development utility through the biomarker qualification evidentiary framework. In the breast cancer setting, several promising biomarkers (ctDNA, Ki-67 and PIK3CA) were identified. There is a need for increased transparency regarding the requirements for qualification of specific biomarkers and increased awareness of the processes involved in biomarker qualification.

Substance abuse is on the rise, and while many people may use illicit drugs mainly due to their rewarding effects, their societal impact can range from severe, as is the case for opioids, to promising, as is the case for psychedelics. Common with all these drugs' mechanisms of action are G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), which lie at the center of how these drugs mediate inebriation, lethality, and therapeutic effects. Opioids like fentanyl, cannabinoids like tetrahydrocannabinol, and psychedelics like lysergic acid diethylamide all directly bind to GPCRs to initiate signaling which elicits their physiological actions. We herein review recent structural studies and provide insights into the molecular mechanisms of opioids, cannabinoids, and psychedelics at their respective GPCR subtypes. We further discuss how such mechanistic insights facilitate drug discovery, either toward the development of novel therapies to combat drug abuse or toward harnessing therapeutic potential., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest D. W. has consulted for Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Longboard Pharmaceuticals and Ocean Bio Ltd on the design of psychedelic-based therapeutics. None of the companies listed herein contributed to the funding or narrative of the manuscript. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with the contents of this article., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Approval of new agents to treat higher risk (HR) myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) has stalled since the approval of DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi). In addition, the options for patients with lower risk (LR) MDS who have high transfusion needs and do not harbor ring sideroblasts or 5q- syndrome are limited. Here, we review the current treatment landscape in MDS and identify areas of unmet need, such as treatment after failure of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents or DNMTis, TP53-mutated disease, and MDS with potentially targetable mutations. We discuss how our understanding of MDS pathogenesis can inform therapy development, including treating HR-MDS similarly to AML and pursuing therapies to address splicing factor mutations and dysregulated inflammation. We then bring a critical lens to current methodology of MDS studies and propose solutions to improve the efficiency and yield of these clinical trials, including using the most meaningful response metrics and expanding enrollment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest M.S. has consulted for Curis Oncology and Boston Consulting and is a member of the advisory boards for Novartis, Kymera, GSK and Sierra Oncology. R.M.S. reports support from AbbVie, AbbVie/Genentech, Actinium, Aprea, Arog, AvenCell, BerGenBio, BMS, Boston Pharmaceuticals, CTI Pharma, Elevate Bio, Foghorn Therapeutics, Gemoab, GSK, Innate, Janssen, Jazz, Kura Onc, Novartis, and Syros (Advisory Boards) and from Aptevo, Syntrix/ACI Clinical, Epizyme and Takeda (DSMB). D.J.D. has received funding/grant support from AbbVie, Blueprint Medicines, GlycoMimetics, and Novartis and honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, Astella, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead, Incyte, Jazz, Kite, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, and Takeda. A.M.Z. is a Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Scholar in Clinical Research. A.M.Z. received research funding (institutional) from Celgene/BMS, AbbVie, Astex, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardiff Oncology, Incyte, Takeda, Novartis, Aprea, and ADC Therapeutics. A.M.Z. participated in advisory boards, and/or had a consultancy with and received honoraria from AbbVie, Otsuka, Pfizer, Celgene/BMS, Jazz, Incyte, Agios, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Acceleron, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Cardinal Health, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, BeyondSpring, Cardiff Oncology, Takeda, Ionis, Amgen, Janssen, Genentech, Epizyme, Syndax, Gilead, Kura, Chiesi, ALX Oncology, BioCryst, Notable, Orum, and Tyme. A.M.Z. served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, AbbVie, Gilead, BioCryst, ALX Oncology, Geron and Celgene/BMS. A.M.Z. received travel support for meetings from Pfizer, Novartis, and Cardiff Oncology., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

There is an urgent need for analgesics with improved efficacy, especially in neuropathic and other chronic pain conditions. Unfortunately, in recent decades, many candidate analgesics have failed in clinical phase II or III trials despite promising preclinical results. Translational assessment tools to verify engagement of pharmacological targets and actions on compartments of the nociceptive system are missing in both rodents and humans. Through the Innovative Medicines Initiative of the European Union and EFPIA, a consortium of researchers from academia and the pharmaceutical industry was established to identify and validate a set of functional biomarkers to assess drug-induced effects on nociceptive processing at peripheral, spinal and supraspinal levels using electrophysiological and functional neuroimaging techniques. Here, we report the results of a systematic literature search for pharmacological probes that allow for validation of these biomarkers. Of 26 candidate substances, only 7 met the inclusion criteria: evidence for nociceptive system modulation, tolerability, availability in oral form for human use and absence of active metabolites. Based on pharmacokinetic characteristics, three were selected for a set of crossover studies in rodents and healthy humans. All currently available probes act on more than one compartment of the nociceptive system. Once validated, biomarkers of nociceptive signal processing, combined with a pharmacometric modelling, will enable a more rational approach to selecting dose ranges and verifying target engagement. Combined with advances in classification of chronic pain conditions, these biomarkers are expected to accelerate analgesic drug development.

In antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) act as carriers for a cytotoxic payload providing the therapy with targeted action against cells expressing a target cell surface antigen. An appropriate choice of mAb is crucial to developing a successful ADC for clinical development. However, problems such as immunogenicity, poor pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles and variable drug-antibody ratios (DARs) plague ADCs. In this review, we detail recent mAb-based innovations and factors that should be considered to overcome these problems to achieve a new generation of more effective ADC therapeutics., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We characterized the size of the premarket safety population for 278 small-molecule new molecular entities (NMEs) and 61 new therapeutic biologics (NTBs) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between October 1, 2002, and December 31, 2014, evaluating the relationship of premarket safety population size to regulatory characteristics and postmarket safety outcomes. The median size of the safety population was 1,044, and was lower for NTBs than NMEs (median: 920 vs. 1,138, P = 0.04), orphan products than nonorphan products (393 vs. 1,606, P < 0.001), and for products with fast-track designation (617 vs. 1,455, P < 0.001), priority review (630 vs. 1,735, P < 0.001), and accelerated approval (475 vs. 1,164, P < 0.001), than products without that designation. The median number of postmarket safety label updates and issues added to the label were higher with larger premarket exposure among nonorphan products, but not among orphan products. Products with accelerated approval using a surrogate end point had a higher median number of safety issues added to the label than those with full approval, but this did not vary with the size of the safety population; fast-track and priority review were not associated with the number of safety issues added to the label. A smaller safety population size was associated with a longer time to first safety outcome for nonorphan products but not orphan products. For orphan and nonorphan products combined, smaller premarket safety population size is not associated with the number or timing of postmarket safety outcomes, regardless of expedited program participation., (Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

The main considerations for the development of a formulation for preclinical safety assessment testing are explored. Intravenous, inhalation, oral and dermal dosing are given focus and although different dose routes do present their own individual challenges there are common themes that emerge. In each case it is necessary to maximise exposure to achieve high doses to satisfy regulatory requirements for safety assessment testing. This often involves producing formulations that are at the limits of solubility and maximum volumes possible for administration to different test species by the chosen route. It is concluded that for all routes it is important to thoroughly explore the stability of the test item in the proposed formulation matrix well ahead of dosing any animals, giving careful consideration to which excipients are used and what their underlying toxicity profile may be for the relevant preclinical species. In addition, determining the maximum achievable concentrations and weighing that against the maximum volumes that can be given by the chosen route in all the test species at an early stage will also give a read on whether it would be theoretically possible to achieve suitably high enough doses to support clinical work. Not doing so can cause delays in the development programme and may have ethical repercussions.

Deciding on the smallest change in an outcome that constitutes a clinically meaningful treatment effect (ie, the minimum clinically important difference [MCID]) is fundamental to interpreting clinical trial outcomes, making clinical decisions, and designing studies with sufficient statistical power to detect any such effect. There is no consensus on MCIDs for outcomes in Alzheimer's disease trials, but the US Food and Drug Administration's consideration of aducanumab clinical trials data has exposed the uncertainty of the clinical meaning of statistically significant but small improvements. Although MCIDs for outcomes, including Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes and Mini-Mental State Examination in Alzheimer's disease have been reported, the Food and Drug Administration's guidelines, drafted in 1989 to facilitate regulatory approval of substantially effective antidementia drugs, do not specify quantified minimum differences. Although it is important that regulatory requirements encourage drug development and approval, without MCIDs, sponsors are motivated to power trials to detect statistical significance for only small and potentially inconsequential effects on clinical outcomes. MCIDs benefit patients, family members, caregivers, and health-care systems and should be incorporated into clinical trials and drug development guidance for Alzheimer's disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Outside of this Personal View, LSS reports grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, Merck, and Roche/Genentech; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Neurim, Ltd, Neuronix, Ltd, Cognition, Eisai, Takeda, vTv, IBC, Abbot, and Samus; and grants from Biogen, Novartis, Biohaven, and Washington Univ/ NIA DIAN-TU. RH and KYL declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Safety biomarkers are important drug development tools, both preclinically and clinically. It is a straightforward process to correlate the performance of nonclinical safety biomarkers with histopathology, and ideally, the biomarker is useful in all species commonly used in safety assessment. In clinical validation studies, where histopathology is not feasible, safety biomarkers are compared to the response of standard biomarkers and/or to clinical adjudication. Worldwide, regulatory agencies have put in place processes to qualify biomarkers to provide confidence in the manner of use and interpretation of biomarker data in drug development studies. This paper describes currently qualified safety biomarkers which can be utilized to monitor for nephrotoxicity and cardiotoxicity and ongoing projects to qualify safety biomarkers for liver, skeletal muscle, and vascular injury. In many cases, the development and use of these critical drug development tools is dependent upon partnerships and the precompetitive sharing of data to support qualification efforts.

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.)

A vaccine is required to effectively control the COVID-19 pandemic in the mid and long term. The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 was initiated as soon as the genetic sequence of the virus was published, and has evolved at an unprecedented speed, with a first clinical trial launched in March 2020. One year later, more than a dozen of vaccines based on different concepts, with some having been evaluated only in clinical trials so far, are authorized under emergency procedures. Here, we review these vaccines, compare their properties and discuss the challenges they face, including the emergence of viral variants of concern., (© 2021 médecine/sciences – Inserm.)

The medical affairs function represents one of the scientific interfaces in a pharmaceutical organization. Over the last two decades, medical affairs has evolved from being a support function to a strategic pillar within organizational business units. The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to unforeseen circumstances resulting in a dramatic change in external stakeholder engagements, catapulting the medical affairs function into leading the way on scientific engagements and patient-centric endeavors. The changes in stakeholder interactions and behavior as a result of the pandemic last year are likely to persist in the foreseeable future for which medical affairs professionals need to enhance existing skill sets and acquire expertise in newer domains. In this paper, the transformation of the medical affairs team to a key strategic partner and the skills required to strengthen this transition, in the next normal of a post-COVID world, is explored., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Clinical studies intended for regulatory approval must demonstrate the clinical benefits of the drug in a target population. Clinical development of a drug proceeds by stepwise clinical studies; after safety and pharmacokinetics are evaluated and the recommended dosage and administration are determined, efficacy and safety are evaluated in an exploratory manner, and finally clinical benefits are compared with conventional standard therapies. Guidelines for the clinical evaluation of anti-cancer drugs in Japan were established in 1991 and amended in 2006 after molecular-targeted drugs were introduced. Recent progress in the development of drugs acting on the immune system and cancer genomic medicine targeting rare but important molecular subtypes have altered the strategy for development of anti-cancer drugs. It is often difficult to conduct a confirmatory randomized controlled study using overall survival as the primary endpoint in rare molecular subtypes, and the primary evaluation of the efficacy of some drugs and subsequent approval is based on the tumor response. As conducting clinical studies for rare subtypes solely within Japan is difficult, drug development needs to be conducted within a global study. However, this requires robust monitoring to detect possible ethnic differences in pharmacokinetics and drug efficacy. Development using the conditional approval system for drugs enforced in 2020 may be considered, when clinical utility is evaluated based on surrogate endpoints. Because of these changes, we have revised the guidelines for the clinical evaluation of anti-cancer drugs in Japan. To promote global development of anti-cancer drugs involving Japan, the guidelines have been translated into English., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.)

Monoclonal antibodies are highly complex, large and biologic products with a substantial impact on the clinical management of a variety of diseases including cancer. The expiry of patents for essential monoclonal antibodies in cancer care such as bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab, has prompted the global development of biosimilars to balance the biologics market. However, an understanding of the different approach of biosimilar development compared with its reference medicinal product, especially in the context of clinical trial design and end point selection may help oncologists integrating biosimilars into clinical practice. Herein, we reviewed the clinical development of biosimilars in oncology comparing the available clinical data of proposed biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab.

Backgroud: The prediction of drug-target interactions (DTIs) is of great significance in drug development. It is time-consuming and expensive in traditional experimental methods. Machine learning can reduce the cost of prediction and is limited by the characteristics of imbalanced datasets and problems of essential feature selection., Methods: The prediction method based on the Ensemble model of Multiple Feature Pairs (Ensemble-MFP) is introduced. Firstly, three negative sets are generated according to the Euclidean distance of three feature pairs. Then, the negative samples of the validation set/test set are randomly selected from the union set of the three negative sets in the validation set/test set. At the same time, the ensemble model with weight is optimized and applied to the test set., Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (area under ROC, AUC) in three out of four sub-datasets in gold standard datasets was more than 94.0% in the prediction of new drugs. The effectiveness of the proposed method is also shown with the comparison of state-of-the-art methods and demonstration of predicted drug-target pairs., Conclusion: The Ensemble-MFP can weigh the existing feature pairs and has a good prediction effect for general prediction on new drugs.

The "Pediatric Dose Selection" workshop was held in October 2020 and sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the University of Maryland Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation. A summary of the presentations in the context of pediatric drug development is summarized in this article., (© 2021, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Precision dosing is progressing beyond the conceptual and proof-of-concept stages toward implementation. As the availability of dosing algorithms, tools, and platforms increases, so do the investment in technology services and actual implementation of clinical services offering these solutions to patients. Nowhere is this needed more than in pediatric populations, which are still reliant on adult drug development and bridging strategies to support dosing, often in the absence of actual dose-finding studies in the target pediatric population. Still, there is more work to be done to ensure that proper governance of these services is maintained, and that sustainability of these early implementations is guided by new science as it evolves and meaningful outcome data to confirm that such services deliver on both clinical and economic return on investment. In addition, the field should ensure that all approaches beyond a therapeutic drug monitoring-driven, pharmacokinetic-centric approach should be considered as the tools and services evolve, especially when pediatric-specific pharmacokinetic/pharmacodyamic and pharmacogenetic data are available and shown to be useful to guide dosing. This review evaluates current pediatric precision dosing efforts, highlighting their utility, longevity, and sustainability and assesses the current process for implementing such approaches examining current barriers that stand in the way of broader implementation and the stakeholders that must engage to ensure its ultimate success., (© 2021, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Pediatric safety evaluations are an essential part of a pediatric drug development program. Communication of the results of these safety evaluations is primarily accomplished by labeling of the drug either during the initial pediatric drug development program, or during the postmarketing period after drug approval for pediatric patients. During drug development, the dose-adverse drug event (ADE) relationship is an important part of the evaluation, but a consideration for pediatric ADEs that are unrelated to drug dosage must be maintained. Examples of dose-related and non-dose-related ADEs are presented. The failure to label a product for pediatric use has been safety related for a number of development programs. The US Food and Drug Administration's Pediatric Advisory Committee is a primary source of the pediatric postmarketing safety review and has been associated with a number of labeling changes through its ongoing review process. Pediatric drug safety remains a critical part of the assessment of dose-effect relationship in the pediatric patient population during the drug development and postmarketing surveillance process., (© 2021, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Dosing is a critical aspect of drug development in pediatrics that has led to trial failures and the inability to label the drug for pediatric use by the US Food and Drug Administration. Developing a structured approach for pediatric dose selection requires knowledge of the current approaches and their success or failure. This study describes the current experience with pediatric dosing methods from 2012 to 2020 and had 2 primary objectives: (1) to identify how the initial pediatric dose was selected and (2) to identify the pivotal dosing strategy used to identify the initially selected dose for safety and efficacy for pediatric clinical trials. Through September 2020, a total of 275 pediatric drug development programs were characterized for initial and pivotal dosing strategies. The success rate for labeling for pediatric use was 76.4%. The most common initial dosing strategy was previous experience with the product, followed by allometric scaling and exposure matching with adults. The most common pivotal dosing strategy was titration to target response in 33% of programs, with the second and third most common being pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies (30%) and exposure matching (20%), respectively. Additionally, about one-half of pediatric programs incorporated model-informed drug development. The emergence of titration to target response may signal a shift toward precision medicine in pediatric patients. Future work in pediatric drug dose selection should move toward the development of a structured pediatric dose selection approach., (Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

One of the biggest challenges in pediatric drug development is defining a safe and effective dose in pediatric populations, which span across a wide age and development range from neonates to adolescents. Model-informed drug development approaches are particularly suited to address knowledge gaps including data leveraging to increase the success of pediatric studies. Considering the often limited number of patients available for study and logistic difficulties to collect the necessary data in pediatric populations, the application of pharmacometrics and modeling and simulation techniques can improve clinical trial efficiency, increase the probability of regulatory success, and optimize therapeutic individualization in support of dedicated trials. This review describes the state of pediatric model-informed drug development to define the right dose for children and provides suggestions for future development., (© 2021, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Throughout recent decades, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors have shown encouraging potential in cancer treatment, and several pan-HDAC inhibitors have been approved for treating malignant cancers. Numerous adverse effects of pan-HDAC inhibitors have been reported, however, during preclinical and clinical evaluations. To avoid undesirable responses, an increasing number of investigations are focusing on the development of isotype-selective HDAC inhibitors. In this study, we present an effective and quantitative cellular assay using high-content analysis (HCA) to determine compounds' inhibition of the activity of HDAC6 and Class I HDAC isoforms, by detecting the acetylation of their corresponding substrates (i.e., α-tubulin and histone H3). Several conditions that are critical for HCA assays, such as cell seeding number, fixation and permeabilization reagent, and antibody dilution, have been fully validated in this study. We used selective HDAC6 inhibitors and inhibitors targeting different HDAC isoforms to optimize and validate the capability of the HCA assay. The results indicated that the HCA assay is a robust assay for quantifying compounds' selectivity of HDAC6 and Class I HDAC isoforms in cells. Moreover, we screened a panel of compounds for HDAC6 selectivity using this HCA assay, which provided valuable information for the structure-activity relationship (SAR). In summary, our results suggest that the HCA assay is a powerful tool for screening selective HDAC6 inhibitors.

Getting the right dose regimen for children and adolescents is important but poses great scientific, practical, and ethical challenges. At the same time, the availability of data in adults is a huge advantage and needs to be used optimally when designing studies in children and analyzing pediatric data. Furthermore, the processes of maturation and growth are always key when selecting doses for children. All the above make study adaptations and model-informed approaches imperative for dose exposure-response characterization and dose selection in children. This article summarizes the experience gained in the European Medicines Agency on this topic and proposes some general guiding principles for defining objectives, study designs, and methodology tools for pediatric dose selection., (© 2021, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

As commonly known, the product development stage is quite complex, requires intensive knowledge, and is time-consuming. The selection of the excipients with the proper functionality and their corresponding levels is critical to drug product performance. The objective of this study was to apply quality by design (QbD) principles for formulation development and to define the desired product quality profile (QTPP) and critical quality attributes (CQA) of a product. QbD is a risk- and science-based holistic approach for upgraded pharmaceutical development. In this study, Ibuprofen DC 85W was used as a model drug, Cellactose® 80 along with MicroceLac® 100 as a filler, and magnesium stearate, stearic acid, and sodium stearyl fumarate as lubricants. By applying different formulation parameters to the filler and lubricants, the QbD approach furthers the understanding of the effect of critical formulation and process parameters on CQAs and the contribution to the overall quality of the drug product. An experimental design study was conducted to determine the changes of the obtained outputs of the formulations, which were evaluated using the Modde Pro 12.1 statistical computer program that enables optimization by modeling complex relationships. The results of the optimum formulation revealed that MicroceLac® 100 was the superior filler, while magnesium stearate at 1% was the optimum lubricant. A design space that indicates the safety operation limits for the process and formulation variables was also created. This study enriches the understanding of the effect of excipients in formulation and assists in enhancing formulation design using experimental design and mathematical modeling methods in the frame of the QbD approach.

In the absence of regulatory guidelines for the bioanalysis of new drug modalities, many of which contain multiple functional domains, bioanalytical strategies have been carefully designed to characterize the intact drug and each functional domain in terms of quantity, functionality, biotransformation, and immunogenicity. The present review focuses on the bioanalytical challenges and considerations for RNA-based drugs, bispecific antibodies and multi-domain protein therapeutics, prodrugs, gene and cell therapies, and fusion proteins. Methods ranging from the conventional ligand binding assays and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry assays to quantitative polymerase chain reaction or flow cytometry often used for oligonucleotides and cell and gene therapies are discussed. Best practices for method selection and validation are proposed as well as a future perspective to address the bioanalytical needs of complex modalities.

In the regulatory setting, clinical pharmacology focuses on the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on inter-patient and intra-subject variability in drug exposure and response. This translational science contributes to the understanding of the benefit-risk profile in individual patients and the development of relevant therapeutic monitoring and management strategies. Clinical pharmacology also plays a major role in the development and qualification of drug development tools. This article presented some recent examples to illustrate the important roles of clinical pharmacology in drug development and evaluation. In addition, emerging trends in clinical pharmacology regulatory sciences were also discussed, including the Model-Informed Drug Development (MIDD) pilot program, the use of real-world data to generate real-world evidence, and leveraging advances in basic, biomedical, and clinical science into useful tools for drug development and evaluation. Continued advances in clinical pharmacology can be the basis of more rational and efficient drug development and improved access to new drug treatments that are tailored to the patient to achieve better efficacy and safety.

The world has entered the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its intensity is significantly higher than that of the first wave of early 2020. Many countries or regions have been forced to start the second round of lockdowns. To respond rapidly to this global pandemic, dozens of COVID-19 vaccine candidates have been developed and many are undergoing clinical testing. Evaluating and defining effective vaccine candidates for human use is crucial for prioritizing vaccination programs against COVID-19. In this review, we have summarized and analyzed the efficacy, immunogenicity and safety data from clinical reports on different COVID-19 vaccines. We discuss the various guidelines laid out for the development of vaccines and the importance of biological standards for comparing the performance of vaccines. Lastly, we highlight the key remaining challenges, possible strategies for addressing them and the expected improvements in the next generation of COVID-19 vaccines., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 He, Mao, Zhang, Bian, Gao, Wang, Xu and Liang.)

The increased risk of harm from COVID-19 infection in pregnancy highlights the importance of including pregnant people in COVID-19 vaccine development and deployment. Promising vaccines being developed include replication-competent platforms, which are typically contraindicated during pregnancy because of theoretical risk. However, replicating vaccines are administered in and around pregnancy, either inadvertently because of unknown pregnancy status or when recommended.The historical cases of Ebola virus, yellow fever, and rubella demonstrate that contradictory messages around the safety of live vaccines in pregnancy have critical public health costs. First, restricting study or use of replicating vaccines in pregnancy may delay or deny access to the only available protection against deadly diseases. Additionally, not vaccinating pregnant people may slow epidemic control. Finally, uncertainty and worry around the safety of live vaccines may lead to terminations of otherwise desired pregnancies after inadvertent vaccination in pregnancy.If one of the vaccines deployed to combat the current global COVID-19 pandemic is replication competent, historical cases offer important lessons for ethical and effective protection for pregnant populations.

There has been an increased interest in and activity for the use of peptide therapeutics to treat a variety of human diseases. The number of peptide drugs entering clinical development and the market has increased significantly over the past decade despite inherent challenges of peptide therapeutic discovery, development, and patient-friendly delivery. Disparities in interpretation and application of existing regulatory guidances to innovative synthetic and conjugated peptide assets have resulted in challenges for both regulators and sponsors. The Symposium on Development and Regulatory Challenges for Peptide Therapeutics at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American College of Toxicology held in November of 2019 focused on the following specific topics: (1) peptide therapeutic progress and future directions, and approaches to discover, optimize, assess, and deliver combination peptide therapeutics for treatment of diseases; (2) toxicological considerations to advance peptide drug-device combination products for efficient development and optimal patient benefit and adherence; (3) industry and regulatory perspectives on the regulation of synthetic and conjugated peptide products, including exploration of regulatory classifications, interpretations, and application of the existing guidances International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) M3(R2) and ICH S6(R1) in determining nonclinical study recommendations; and (4) presentation of the 2016 Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee working group assessment of genotoxicity testing requirements. Perspectives were shared from industry and regulatory scientists working in the peptide therapeutics field followed by an open forum panel discussion to discuss questions drafted for the peptide therapeutics scientific community, which will be discussed in more detail.

The development of age appropriate formulations for the paediatric population has become one of the key areas of focus for the pharmaceutical industry - with a subsequent influence on excipient use. Selection of excipients with appropriate safety and tolerability is a major hurdle in paediatric formulation development. Various factors influence selection of excipients, including target age group, route of administration and dosage form. Evaluation of these factors and a clear rationale and justification is expected by the regulators when it comes to selecting excipients for paediatric formulation. Scientists are encouraged to apply the principle of benefit to risk balance to assess the suitability of excipients to the specific paediatric population for whom the formulation is intended. In order to understand how scientists approach the task of establishing the risk to benefit analysis, a workshop was organised by the European Paediatric Formulation Initiative (EuPFI) to reflect on the current scenario and the different practices employed by formulation scientists in the selection of excipients for paediatric formulations. Aspects assessed by regulators were also canvassed. Finally, the participants were asked to comment on how selecting excipients for use in paediatric formulations may differ from the considerations applied in selecting excipients for formulations for other age groups. Based on the workshop discussion, some recommendations and questions to consider emerged regarding the selection of excipients in paediatric drug development. These best practice recommendations provided a good starting point for a more systematic strategy for selecting excipients for paediatric formulation development., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) absorption modeling and simulation is increasingly used as a tool in drug product development, not only in support of clinical pharmacology applications (e.g., drug-drug interaction, dose selection) but also from quality perspective, enhancing drug product understanding. This report provides a summary of the status and the application of PBPK absorption modeling and simulation in new drug application (NDA) submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to support drug product quality (e.g., clinically relevant dissolution specifications, active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) particle size distribution specifications). During the 10 years from 2008 to 2018, a total of 24 NDA submissions included the use of PBPK absorption modeling and simulations for biopharmaceutics-related assessment. In these submissions, PBPK absorption modeling and simulation served as an impactful tool in establishing the relationship of critical quality attributes (CQAs) including formulation variables, specifically in vitro dissolution, to the in vivo performance. This article also summarizes common practices in PBPK approaches and proposes future directions for the use of PBPK absorption modeling and simulation in drug product quality assessment.Graphical abstract.

Identifying new drug targets and developing safe and effective drugs is both challenging and risky. Furthermore, characterizing drug development risk, the probability that a drug will eventually receive regulatory approval, has been notoriously hard given the complexities of drug biology and clinical trials. This inherent risk is often misunderstood and mischaracterized, leading to inefficient allocation of resources and, as a result, an overall reduction in R&D productivity. Here we argue that the recent resurgence of Machine Learning in combination with the availability of data can provide a more accurate and unbiased estimate of drug development risk., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

How to accurately estimate protein-ligand binding affinity remains a key challenge in computer-aided drug design (CADD). In many cases, it has been shown that the binding affinities predicted by classical scoring functions (SFs) cannot correlate well with experimentally measured biological activities. In the past few years, machine learning (ML)-based SFs have gradually emerged as potential alternatives and outperformed classical SFs in a series of studies. In this study, to better recognize the potential of classical SFs, we have conducted a comparative assessment of 25 commonly used SFs. Accordingly, the scoring power was systematically estimated by using the state-of-the-art ML methods that replaced the original multiple linear regression method to refit individual energy terms. The results show that the newly-developed ML-based SFs consistently performed better than classical ones. In particular, gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) and random forest (RF) achieved the best predictions in most cases. The newly-developed ML-based SFs were also tested on another benchmark modified from PDBbind v2007, and the impacts of structural and sequence similarities were evaluated. The results indicated that the superiority of the ML-based SFs could be fully guaranteed when sufficient similar targets were contained in the training set. Moreover, the effect of the combinations of features from multiple SFs was explored, and the results indicated that combining NNscore2.0 with one to four other classical SFs could yield the best scoring power. However, it was not applicable to derive a generic target-specific SF or SF combination., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

A diverse range of platforms has been established to increase the efficiency and speed of clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease (AD). These platforms enable parallel assessment of multiple therapeutics, treatment regimens, or participant groups; use uniform protocols and outcome measures; and may allow treatment arms to be added or dropped based on interim analyses of outcomes. The EU/US CTAD Task Force discussed the lessons learned from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer's Network Trials Unit (DIAN-TU) platform trial and the challenges addressed by other platform trials that have launched or are in the planning stages. The landscape of clinical trial platforms in the AD space includes those testing experimental therapies such as DIAN-TU, platforms designed to test multidomain interventions, and those designed to streamline trial recruitment by building trial-ready cohorts. The heterogeneity of the AD patient population, AD drugs, treatment regimens, and analytical methods complicates the design and execution of platform trials, yet Task Force members concluded that platform trials are essential to advance the search for effective AD treatments, including combination therapies., Competing Interests: The Task Force was partially funded by registration fees from industrial participants. These corporations placed no restrictions on this work. Dr. Aisen reports grants from Janssen, NIA, FNIH, Alzheimer’s Association, and Eisai, personal fees from Merk, Biogen, Roche, ImmunoBrain Checkpoint, Abbvie, Rainbow Medical, and personal fees from Shionogi, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bateman reports grants from the Alzheimers Association, NIH, FNIH, GHR Foundation, Eli Lilly and Company, Hoffman-LaRoche, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Janssen, Eisai, Genetech Abbvie, Biogen, Centene, United Neuroscience, and an anonymous organization. In-kind support from CogState and Signant. Personal fees from Hoffman-LaRoche, Janssen, Eisai, C2N Diagnostics, AC Immune, Amgen, and Pfizer. Dr. Carrillo does not have any COI and is a full time empolyee of the Alzheimer’s Assn. Dr. Doody is a full-time employee of F. Hoffman LaRoche/Genentech; Dr. Johnson reports personal fees from Novartis, AC Immune, Janssen and Cerveau, outside the submitted work. Dr. Sims is an empolyee of Lilly. Dr. Sperling reports grants from Eli Lilly, NIA, Alzheimer’s Association, Janssen, Eisai, personal fees from Shionogi, Genentech, Oligomerix, Inc., Cytox, Prothena, Acumen, JOMDD, Renew, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Neuraly, Janssen, Neurocentria, AC Immune, Biogen, Eisai, Roche and Takeda Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Vellas reports grants from Lilly, Merck, Roche, Lundbeck, Biogen, grants from Alzheimer’s Association, European Commission, personal fees from Lilly, Merck, Roche, Biogen, outside the submitted work.

Interest in drug development for rare diseases has expanded dramatically since the Orphan Drug Act was passed in 1983, with 40% of new drug approvals in 2019 targeting orphan indications. However, limited quantitative understanding of natural history and disease progression hinders progress and increases the risks associated with rare disease drug development. Use of international data standards can assist in data harmonization and enable data exchange, integration into larger datasets, and a quantitative understanding of disease natural history. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires the use of Clinical Data Interchange Consortium (CDISC) Standards in new drug submissions to help the agency efficiently and effectively receive, process, review, and archive submissions, as well as to help integrate data to answer research questions. Such databases have been at the core of biomarker qualification efforts and fit-for-purpose models endorsed by the regulators. We describe the development of CDISC therapeutic area user guides for Duchenne muscular dystrophy and Huntington's disease through Critical Path Institute consortia. These guides describe formalized data structures and controlled terminology to map and integrate data from different sources. This will result in increased standardization of data collection and allow integration and comparison of data from multiple studies. Integration of multiple data sets enables a quantitative understanding of disease progression, which can help overcome common challenges in clinical trial design in these and other rare diseases. Ultimately, clinical data standardization will lead to a faster path to regulatory approval of urgently needed new therapies for patients., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Covid-19 pandemic has caused hundreds of thousands deaths and millions of infections and continued spreading violently. Although researchers are racing to find or develop effective drugs or vaccines, no drugs from modern medical system have been proven effective and the high mutant rates of the virus may lead it resistant to whatever drugs or vaccines developed following modern drug development procedure. Current evidence has demonstrated impressive healing effects of several Chinese medicines (CMs) for Covid-19, which urges us to reflect on the role of CM in the era of modern medicine. Undoubtedly, CM could be promising resources for developing drug candidates for the treatment of Covid-19 in a way similar to the development of artemisinin. But the theory that builds CM, like the emphasis of driving away exogenous pathogen (virus, etc.) by restoring self-healing capacity rather than killing the pathogen directly from the inside and the 'black-box' mode of diagnosing and treating patients, is as important, yet often ignored, an treasure as CM herbs and should be incorporated into modern medicine for future advancement and innovation of medical science.

Translational and ADME Sciences Leadership Group Induction Working Group (IWG) presents an analysis on the time course for cytochrome P450 induction in primary human hepatocytes. Induction of CYP1A2, CYP2B6, and CYP3A4 was evaluated by seven IWG laboratories after incubation with prototypical inducers (omeprazole, phenobarbital, rifampicin, or efavirenz) for 6-72 hours. The effect of incubation duration and model-fitting approaches on induction parameters (E max and EC 50 ) and drug-drug interaction (DDI) risk assessment was determined. Despite variability in induction response across hepatocyte donors, the following recommendations are proposed: 1) 48 hours should be the primary time point for in vitro assessment of induction based on mRNA level or activity, with no further benefit from 72 hours; 2) when using mRNA, 24-hour incubations provide reliable assessment of induction and DDI risk; 3) if validated using prototypical inducers (>10-fold induction), 12-hour incubations may provide an estimate of induction potential, including characterization as negative if <2-fold induction of mRNA and no concentration dependence; 4) atypical dose-response ("bell-shaped") curves can be addressed by removing points outside an established confidence interval and %CV; 5) when maximum fold induction is well defined, the choice of nonlinear regression model has limited impact on estimated induction parameters; 6) when the maximum fold induction is not well defined, conservative DDI risk assessment can be obtained using sigmoidal three-parameter fit or constraining logistic three- or four-parameter fits to the maximum observed fold induction; 7) preliminary data suggest initial slope of the fold induction curve can be used to estimate E max /EC 50 and for induction risk assessment. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Regulatory agencies provide inconsistent guidance on the optimum length of time to evaluate cytochrome P450 induction in human hepatocytes, with EMA recommending 72 hours and FDA suggesting 48-72 hours. The Induction Working Group analyzed a large data set generated by seven member companies and determined that induction response and drug-drug risk assessment determined after 48-hour incubations were representative of 72-hour incubations. Additional recommendations are provided on model-fitting techniques for induction parameter estimation and addressing atypical concentration-response curves., (Copyright © 2020 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutic.)

The pharmaceutical industry is continuing to face high research and development (R&D) costs and low overall success rates of clinical compounds during drug development. There is an increasing demand for development and validation of healthy or disease-relevant and physiological human cellular models that can be implemented in early-stage discovery, thereby shifting attrition of future therapeutics to a point in discovery at which the costs are significantly lower. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the early drug discovery phase (which is lengthy and costly), away from simplistic cellular models that show an inability to effectively and efficiently reproduce healthy or human disease-relevant states to steer target and compound selection for safety, pharmacology, and efficacy questions. This perspective article covers the various stages of early drug discovery from target identification (ID) and validation to the hit/lead discovery phase, lead optimization, and preclinical safety. We outline key aspects that should be considered when developing, qualifying, and implementing complex in vitro models (CIVMs) during these phases, because criteria such as cell types (e.g., cell lines, primary cells, stem cells, and tissue), platform (e.g., spheroids, scaffolds or hydrogels, organoids, microphysiological systems, and bioprinting), throughput, automation, and single and multiplexing endpoints will vary. The article emphasizes the need to adequately qualify these CIVMs such that they are suitable for various applications (e.g., context of use) of drug discovery and translational research. The article ends looking to the future, in which there is an increase in combining computational modeling, artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML), and CIVMs.