Search

Changes that accompany older age can alter the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and likelihood of adverse effects (AEs) of a drug. However, older adults, especially the oldest or those with multiple chronic health conditions, polypharmacy, or frailty, are often under-represented in clinical trials of new drugs. Deficits in the current conduct of clinical evaluation of drugs for older adults and potential steps to fill those knowledge gaps are presented in this communication. The most important step is to increase clinical trial enrollment of older adults who are representative of the target treatment population. Unnecessary eligibility criteria should be eliminated. Physical and financial barriers to participation should be removed. Incentives could be created for inclusion of older adults. Enrollment goals should be established based on intended treatment indications, prevalence of the condition, and feasibility. Relevant clinical pharmacology data need to be obtained early enough to guide dosing and reduce risk for participation of older adults. Relevant PK and PD data as well as patient-centered outcomes should be measured during trials. Trial data should be analyzed for differences in PK, PD, effectiveness, and safety arising from differences in age or from the presence of conditions common in older adults. Postmarket evaluations with real-world evidence and drug labeling updates throughout the product lifecycle reflecting new knowledge are also needed. A comprehensive plan is needed to ensure adequate evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of drugs in older adults.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE The discussion about health equity in the United States frequently involves concerns over racial and ethnic minority under-representation in clinical trials and particularly in trials conducted in support of product approvals. The FDA has long worked to encourage diverse participation in clinical trials and through its Drug Trials Snapshots (DTS) program, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has moved to make trial demographic data more accessible and transparent. We conducted a demographic study of U.S. participants in clinical trials for FDA-approved new drugs (new molecular entities [NMEs], and original Biologics License Applications [BLAs]) from 2015 to 2019, as reported in DTS database with a purpose of understanding the extent to which U.S.-based trials used to support product approvals represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. population by therapeutic area. METHODS Participant-level trial data were collected by accessing the FDA electronic common technical document (eCTD), for the applications used to publish each Snapshot. The therapeutic area (TA) for each drug was determined by review division assignment. The demographic data were analysed and compared to U.S. census data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION We examined 102,596 U.S. participants in trials of new drugs that were approved and presented in Drug Trials Snapshots between 2015 and 2019. White participation ranged from 51% in psychiatric trials to 90% in cardiovascular (CV) trials; Black or African American participation ranged from 5% in medical imaging to 45% in psychiatric trials; Asian participation ranged from 0.75% in CV to 4% in dermatologic trials; and Hispanic or Latino participation ranged from 1% in medical imaging to 22% in infectious diseases and gastroenterology trials. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION Our data showed variable representation of racial and ethnic minorities across therapeutic areas at the U.S. sites. Blacks or African Americans were represented at or above U.S. census estimates across most therapeutic areas, while Asians and American Indian or Alaska Natives were consistently underrepresented. Hispanic or Latino participation across most therapeutic areas was below U.S. census estimates, however, more variable, and a sizable proportion of data was missing. The next step is a comparison of trial participation based on disease prevalence and epidemiology, which is a more accurate assessment of trial diversity.

Heart failure (HF) patients experience a high burden of symptoms and functional limitations, and morbidity and mortality remain high despite successful therapies. The majority of HF drugs in the United States are approved for reducing hospitalization and mortality, while only a few have indications for improving quality of life, physical function, or symptoms. Patient-reported outcomes that directly measure patient's perception of health status (symptoms, physical function, or quality of life) are potentially approvable endpoints in drug development. This paper summarizes the history of endpoints used for HF drug approvals in the United States and reviews endpoints that measure symptoms, physical function, or quality of life in HF patients.

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

We review the main lines of evidence (molecular, cellular and whole organism) published since the 1970s demonstrating Lamarckian Inheritance in animals, plants and microorganisms viz. the transgenerational inheritance of environmentally-induced acquired characteristics. The studies in animals demonstrate the genetic permeability of the soma-germline Weismann Barrier. The widespread nature of environmentally-directed inheritance phenomena reviewed here contradicts a key pillar of neo-Darwinism which affirms the rigidity of the Weismann Barrier. These developments suggest that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is in need of significant revision. We argue that Lamarckian inheritance strategies involving environmentally-induced rapid directional genetic adaptations make biological sense in the context of cosmic Panspermia allowing the efficient spread of living systems and genetic innovation throughout the Universe. The Hoyle-Wickramasinghe Panspermia paradigm also developed since the 1970s, unlike strictly geocentric neo-Darwinism provides a cogent biological rationale for the actual widespread existence of Lamarckian modes of inheritance - it provides its raison d'être. Under a terrestrially confined neo-Darwinian viewpoint such an association may have been thought spurious in the past. Our aim is to outline the conceptual links between rapid Lamarckian-based evolutionary hypermutation processes dependent on reverse transcription-coupled mechanisms among others and the effective cosmic spread of living systems. For example, a viable, or cryo-preserved, living system travelling through space in a protective matrix will need of necessity to rapidly adapt and proliferate on landing in a new cosmic niche. Lamarckian mechanisms thus come to the fore and supersede the slow (blind and random) genetic processes expected under a traditional neo-Darwinian evolutionary paradigm.

The complexity and costs associated with traditional randomized, controlled trials have increased exponentially over time, and now threaten to stifle the development of new drugs and devices. Nevertheless, the growing use of electronic health records, mobile applications, and wearable devices offers significant promise for transforming clinical trials, making them more pragmatic and efficient. However, many challenges must be overcome before these innovations can be implemented routinely in randomized, controlled trial operations. In October of 2018, a diverse stakeholder group convened in Washington, DC, to examine how electronic health record, mobile, and wearable technologies could be applied to clinical trials. The group specifically examined how these technologies might streamline the execution of clinical trial components, delineated innovative trial designs facilitated by technological developments, identified barriers to implementation, and determined the optimal frameworks needed for regulatory oversight. The group concluded that the application of novel technologies to clinical trials provided enormous potential, yet these changes needed to be iterative and facilitated by continuous learning and pilot studies.

Esketamine for Treatment-Resistant Depression The FDA has approved esketamine, the first antidepressant in a new class, for treatment-resistant depression. The agency weighed the drug’s rapid onset...

ImportanceOlder age may be accompanied by changes in the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics or both of medications that can result in altered safety and efficacy profiles.ObjectiveTo assess representation of older adults in clinical trials of new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data for NDAs and BLAs approved from 2010 through 2019. Age distribution of clinical trial participants was compared with age distribution of the US population with the disease or disorder (prevalent population). Data were from adults enrolled in registration trials for depression, heart failure, insomnia, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) stroke prevention, osteoporosis, and type 2 diabetes or adults sampled from US prevalent population in community-dwelling health data. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to February 2021.ExposuresTrial enrollment.Main Outcomes and MeasuresRepresentativeness of trial populations was assessed by the participation to prevalence ratio (PPR) defined as the percentage of patients by age group among clinical trial participants to the percentage of patients by age group among US prevalent population.ResultsData from 166 clinical trials (229 558 participants) for 44 NDAs and BLAs were analyzed. The most consistent finding was the limited enrollment of the oldest age groups, namely those 75 years and above for type 2 diabetes and NSCLC, and 80 years and above for NVAF stroke prevention, insomnia, heart failure, and osteoporosis. Adults aged 60 to 74 years were enrolled in equal or greater proportion than the US prevalent population.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, underrepresentation of the oldest adults existed during evaluation of new drugs and biologics, yet the older adults may represent significant proportions of the treatment population. Closing the representation gap between clinical trial enrollment and potential treatment populations is essential for safe and effective use of new drugs and biologics.

Responses to a drug treatment can differ among subgroups of the population, including demographic subgroups, groups with different disease characteristics, and groups with different metabolic or excretory functions. The differences can be pharmacokinetic (PK) or pharmacodynamic (PD) affecting toxicity or effectiveness. In recent years wide availability of drug blood level data, including metabolite data, has made PK differences in subgroups very readily detectable, but PD differences are more difficult to detect and need to be carefully examined by assessment of effectiveness and toxicity in demographic and other subgroups, as illustrated by the forest plots examining multiple subgroups typically presented for cardiovascular outcome studies. Such examinations and presentations would probably be more broadly useful and informative if used to examine pooled outcome and toxicity data for symptomatic treatments.

It is proposed that the future trajectory of SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and our exploration of alien planets and alien intelligence could be to consider the possibility of receiving and transmitting coded messages embedded as DNA inserts in bacteria and/or viruses. Physical space-travel and ambitions of space colonisation may well give way to a new era of “cultural” microbial colonisation of our galaxy.

In this Chapter we discuss the various mechanisms that are available for the possible transfer of cosmic microbial living systems from one cosmic habitat to another. With the 100 or so habitable planets that are now known to exist in our galaxy alone transfers of cometary dust carrying life including fragments of icy planetoids/asteroids would be expected to occur on a routine basis. It is thus easy to view the galaxy as a single connected "biosphere" of which our planet Earth is a minor component. The Hoyle-Wickramasinghe Panspermia paradigm provides a cogent biological rationale for the actual widespread existence of Lamarckian modes of inheritance in terrestrial systems (which we review here). Thus the Panspermia paradigm provides the raison d'etre for Lamarckian Inheritance. Under a terrestrially confined neoDarwinian viewpoint such an association may have been thought spurious in the past. Our aim here is to outline the main evidence for rapid terrestrial-based Lamarckian-based evolutionary hypermutation processes dependent on reverse transcription-coupled mechanisms among others. Such rapid adaptation mechanisms would be consistent with the effective cosmic spread of living systems. For example, a viable, or cryo-preserved, living system traveling through space in a protective matrix will of necessity need to adapt rapidly and proliferate on landing in a new cosmic niche. Lamarckian mechanisms thus come to the fore and supersede the slow (blind and random) genetic processes expected under neoDarwinian Earth centred theories.

A wide range of evidence for pointing to our cosmic origins is close to the point of being overwhelming. Yet the long-entrenched paradigm of Earth-centered biology appears to prevail in scientific culture. A matter of crucial importance is to carry out a decisive experiment that is long overdue-establishing empirically beyond any doubt that extraterrestrial microbiota reaches the surface of the Earth at the present day. Such an experiment may of course happen naturally by the appearance of pandemics of new disease as discussed in an earlier chapter.

Only about half of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at increased risk for stroke are treated with an oral anticoagulant (OAC), despite guideline recommendations for their use. Educating patients with AF about prevention of stroke with OACs may enable them as agents of change to initiate OAC treatment.To determine whether an educational intervention directed to patients and their clinicians stimulates the use of OACs in patients with AF who are not receiving OACs.The Implementation of a Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve Treatment With Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AFib) trial was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from September 25, 2017, to May 1, 2019, embedded in health plans that participate in the US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System. It used the distributed database comprising health plan members to identify eligible patients, their clinicians, and outcomes. IMPACT-AFib enrolled patients with AF, a CHA2DS2-VASc (cardiac failure or dysfunction, hypertension, age 65-74 [1 point] or ≥75 years [2 points], diabetes, and stroke, transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism [2 points]-vascular disease, and sex category [female]) score of 2 or more, no evidence of OAC prescription dispensing in the preceding 12 months, and no hospitalization-related bleeding event within the prior 6 months.Randomization to a single mailing of patient and/or clinician educational materials vs control.Analysis was performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with at least 1 OAC prescription dispensed or at least 4 international normalized ratio test results within 1 year of the intervention.Among 47 333 patients, there were 24 909 men (52.6%), the mean (SD) age was 77.9 (9.7) years, mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.5 (1.7), 22 404 patients (47.3%) had an ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) bleeding risk score of 5 or more, and 8890 patients (18.8%) had a history of hospitalization for bleeding. There were 2328 of 23 546 patients (9.9%) in the intervention group with initiation of OAC at 1 year compared with 2330 of 23 787 patients (9.8%) in the control group (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.95-1.07]; P = .79).Among a large population with AF with a guideline indication for OACs for stroke prevention who were randomized to a mailed educational intervention or to usual care, there was no clinically meaningful, numerical, or statistically significant difference in rates of OAC initiation. More-intensive interventions are needed to try and address the public health issue of underuse of anticoagulation for stroke prevention among patients with AF.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03259373.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration’s Sentinel Initiative is well positioned to support pragmatic clinical trials. FDA-Catalyst combines direct contact with health plan members and/or providers with data in the Sentinel infrastructure. Here, we describe the rationale, feasibility analyses, and lessons learned from the planning phase of the first large pragmatic trial conducted using the Sentinel Initiative’s delivery system capabilities—IMplementation of a randomized controlled trial to imProve treatment with oral AntiCoagulanTs in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (the IMPACT-AFib trial). Methods: During the planning phase, we convened representatives from five commercial health plans, FDA, study coordinating centers, and a patient representative for protocol development, institutional review board preparation, and other activities. Administrative claims data from the plans were included in a retrospective cohort analysis to assess sample size for the trial. Members ≥30 years old with ≥365 days of medical/pharmacy coverage, ≥2 diagnosis codes for atrial fibrillation, a guideline-based indication for oral anticoagulant use for stroke prevention, and no evidence of oral anticoagulant use in the 365 days prior to the index atrial fibrillation diagnosis in 2013 were included. Exclusions for the analysis included other conditions requiring anticoagulation, history of intracranial hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleed. We calculated rates of oral anticoagulant use, transient ischemic attack or stroke, and bleeding in the 365 days following the index atrial fibrillation diagnosis. Results: A total of 44,786 members with atrial fibrillation with no evidence of recent oral anticoagulant use were identified. In total, 87% (n = 38,759) were classified as having a guideline-based indication for oral anticoagulants. Of those, 33% (n = 12,867) had a new oral anticoagulant dispensed during the following year, 15% (n = 5917) were hospitalized for stroke or transient ischemic attack, and 9% (n = 3469) for bleeding events. This information was used to develop the trial protocol including sample size, power calculations, and level of randomization. Conclusion: Sentinel infrastructure generated preliminary data that supported planning and implementation of a large pragmatic trial embedded in health plans. This planning identified unanticipated challenges that must be addressed in similar trials.

The novel direct oral anticoagulants (NOACs) represent a major advance in oral anticoagulant therapy and are replacing vitamin K antagonists as the preferred options for many indications. Given in fixed doses without routine laboratory monitoring, they have been shown to be at least as effective in reducing thromboembolic stroke as dose-adjusted warfarin in phase 3 randomized trials and less likely to cause hemorrhagic stroke. Pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic subanalyses of the major NOAC trials in patients with atrial fibrillation have established relationships between clinical characteristics, and drug levels and/or pharmacodynamic responses with both efficacy and safety. Based on these analyses, pharmaceutical manufacturers and regulatory authorities have provided contraindications and dosing recommendations based on clinical characteristics that are associated with drug levels and/or pharmacodynamic responses, stroke reduction, and bleeding risk to optimize the risk-benefit profile of the NOACs in the real world. The current fixed-dosing strategy of NOACs has triggered discussions about the potential value of laboratory monitoring and dose adjustment in customizing drug exposure to further improve the safety and efficacy of the NOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation. As there is neither high-quality evidence nor consensus about the potential role of laboratory monitoring and dose adjustment for the NOACs, a Cardiac Research Safety Consortium "Think Tank" meeting was held at the American College of Cardiology Heart House in December 2015 to discussions these issues. This manuscript reports on the deliberations and the conclusions reached at that meeting.

Background Concerns exist that women are underrepresented in trials of cardiovascular medications. Objectives The authors sought to examine women’s participation and the reported safety and efficacy by gender for pivotal cardiovascular disease (CVD) trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supporting marketing applications. Methods On the basis of publicly available FDA reviews, the authors assessed enrollment of women in trials supporting 36 drug approvals from 2005 to 2015. Prevalence-corrected estimates for the participation of women were calculated as the percentage of women among trial participants divided by the percentage of women in the disease population (participation to prevalence ratio [PPR]), with a range between 0.8 and 1.2 reflecting similar representation of women in the trial and disease population. Sex differences in efficacy and safety were assessed. Results The proportion of women enrolled ranged from 22% to 81% (mean 46%). The calculated PPR by disease area was within or above the desirable range for atrial fibrillation (0.8 to 1.1), hypertension (0.9), and pulmonary arterial hypertension (1.4); PPR was Conclusions Women were well represented in trials of drugs for hypertension and atrial fibrillation, and overrepresented for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Representation of women fell below a PPR of 0.8 for trials in heart failure, coronary artery disease, and acute coronary syndrome. Minimal gender differences in drug efficacy and safety profiles were observed.

An Appropriate Use of Accelerated Approval The FDA decision to grant accelerated approval to aducanumab for Alzheimer’s disease fits squarely in the accelerated approval pathway, which was created ...

Advances in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of disease have spurred the development of targeted therapies and the use of precision medicine approaches in patient care. While targeted therapies have improved our capability to provide effective treatments to patients, they also present additional challenges to drug development and benefit-risk assessment such as identifying the subset(s) of patients likely to respond to the drug, assessing heterogeneity in response across molecular subsets of a disease, and developing diagnostic tests to identify patients for treatment. These challenges are particularly difficult to address when targeted therapies are developed to treat diseases with multiple molecular subtypes that occur at low frequencies. To help address these challenges, the US Food and Drug Administration recently published a draft guidance entitled "Developing Targeted Therapies in Low-Frequency Molecular Subsets of a Disease." Here we provide additional information on specific aspects of targeted therapy development in diseases with low-frequency molecular subsets.

Controlled trials provide the most valid determination of the efficacy and safety of an intervention, but large cardiovascular clinical trials have become extremely costly and complex, making it difficult to study many important clinical questions. A critical question, and the main objective of this review, is how trials might be simplified while maintaining randomisation to preserve scientific integrity and unbiased efficacy assessments. Experience with alternative approaches is accumulating, specifically with registry-based randomised controlled trials that make use of data already collected. This approach addresses bias concerns while still capitalising on the benefits and efficiencies of a registry. Several completed or ongoing trials illustrate the feasibility of using registry-based controlled trials to answer important questions relevant to daily clinical practice. Randomised trials within healthcare organisation databases may also represent streamlined solutions for some types of investigations, although data quality (endpoint assessment) is likely to be a greater concern in those settings. These approaches are not without challenges, and issues pertaining to informed consent, blinding, data quality and regulatory standards remain to be fully explored. Collaboration among stakeholders is necessary to achieve standards for data management and analysis, to validate large data sources for use in randomised trials, and to re-evaluate ethical standards to encourage research while also ensuring that patients are protected. The rapidly evolving efforts to streamline cardiovascular clinical trials have the potential to lead to major advances in promoting better care and outcomes for patients with cardiovascular disease.

The United States FDA has received over 800 botanical investigational new drug applications (IND) and pre-IND meeting requests (PIND) in the years preceding 2018. The current data show that indications for submitted INDs cover nearly every review division of the FDA. Despite increasing global interest in the investigation of botanical mixtures as drug products, only two botanical new drug applications (NDA) have been approved in the U.S.: Veregen in 2006 and Fulyzaq (also known as Mytesi) in 2012. Given botanicals' chemical and biological complexity, efforts in characterizing their pharmacology, demonstrating therapeutic efficacy, and ensuring quality consistency remain scientific and regulatory challenges. The FDA published a revised

The origins and global spread of two recent, yet quite different, pandemic diseases is discussed and reviewed in depth: Candida auris, a eukaryotic fungal disease, and COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), a positive strand RNA viral respiratory disease. Both these diseases display highly distinctive patterns of sudden emergence and global spread, which are not easy to understand by conventional epidemiological analysis based on simple infection-driven human- to-human spread of an infectious disease (assumed to jump suddenly and thus genetically, from an animal reservoir). Both these enigmatic diseases make sense however under a Panspermia in-fall model and the evidence consistent with such a model is critically reviewed.

A wide range of evidence for pointing to our cosmic origins is close to the point of being overwhelming. Yet the long-entrenched paradigm of Earth-centered biology appears to prevail in scientific culture. A matter of crucial importance is to carry out a decisive experiment that is long overdue-establishing empirically beyond any doubt that extraterrestrial microbiota reaches the surface of the Earth at the present day. Such an experiment may of course happen naturally by the appearance of pandemics of new disease as discussed in an earlier chapter.

Heart failure (HF) patients experience a high burden of symptoms and functional limitations, and morbidity and mortality remain high despite successful therapies. The majority of HF drugs in the United States are approved for reducing hospitalization and mortality, while only a few have indications for improving quality of life, physical function, or symptoms. Patient-reported outcomes that directly measure patient's perception of health status (symptoms, physical function, or quality of life) are potentially approvable endpoints in drug development. This paper summarizes the history of endpoints used for HF drug approvals in the United States and reviews endpoints that measure symptoms, physical function, or quality of life in HF patients.

To investigate skin-related postoperative outcomes following a tissue preservation technique in percutaneous hydroxyapatite-coated bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) abutment implantation.A retrospective medical records review of adult patients, who underwent single-stage BAHA implantation between July 2013 and November 2017 at a tertiary centre was conducted. Surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon using a linear incision soft tissue preservation technique. Patients were reviewed at 1 week, 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and annually postoperatively and soft tissue reactions were graded using Holger's score RESULTS: There were 102 patients included with a slight female preponderance (female:male 56:46). There were 586 follow-up episodes during the study period. From the recorded follow-up episodes, Holger's scores were documented as follows: Holger score 0 (89%); 1 (7%); 2 (2%); 3 (1.9%). Three patients (3%) required peri-abutment soft tissue excision (Holger 3) and insertion of longer abutments. One patient (1%) reported atraumatic implant loss. The BAHA was re-implanted in two patients (2%) due to traumatic dislodgement. There was a statistically significant association (p = 0.009) when the mean time to minor skin complications was compared with mean time to a significant skin reaction.Tissue preservation technique is the procedure of choice for BAHA abutment implant surgery. It confers excellent soft tissue outcomes and an excellent implant survival rate.

Importance Before reviewing drug applications, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducts “filing reviews” to assess whether they are complete enough for full review. If the applications are incomplete, the FDA issues refuse-to-file (RTF) letters identifying deficiencies. The FDA does not make these RTF letters public at the time of issuance. Why the FDA issues RTF letters and how often the letters and their contents are made publicly available are unknown. Objectives To quantitatively analyze the FDA’s reasons for issuing RTF letters and assess the public transparency of RTF letters and their contents. Design and Setting This cross-sectional study analyzes RTF letters issued in response to new drug applications and efficacy supplements (applications for new indications or patient populations for already approved drugs) submitted to the FDA between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. Statistical analysis was conducted in July 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Two types of information were extracted and cataloged from RTF letters: (1) the reasons why the FDA refused to file applications and (2) the FDA comments that, while not a basis for RTF letters, conveyed important information to applicants. The extent to which applicants publicly disclosed the FDA’s refusal reasons were also assessed. Results The study included 103 RTF letters containing a total of 644 identified FDA refusal reasons. Among the 2475 applications that the FDA received during the study time frame, 98 (4.0%) received RTF letters. Overall, 84.5% (544 of 644) of the refusal reasons were for scientific deficiencies; most reasons were related to drug efficacy and safety (196 [30.4%]) and drug quality (125 [19.4%]). The remaining 15.5% of refusal reasons (100 of 644) were for application organization deficiencies or legal issues. A total of 26.2% of the RTF letters (27 of 103) identified presubmission advice from the FDA that applicants did not follow; the most frequently ignored advice was related to clinical trial design (33.3% [9 of 27]), followed by product chemistry and manufacturing (25.9% [7 of 27]). Applicants publicly disclosed the existence of 16 of 103 RTF letters (15.5%); however, only 5.4% of applicant-disclosed reasons (35 of 644) matched the refusal reasons that the FDA had provided in the RTF letters. Conclusions and Relevance This cross-sectional study found that the FDA refused to file applications for substantive reasons related to quality, safety, and efficacy, and applicants’ disclosure of those reasons was incomplete. This work sheds light on the FDA’s regulatory decision-making processes and the RTF reasons that could delay availability of therapies to patients.

In response to various drug-related disasters, the requirement for demonstration of safety for marketed drug products was first established in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938. The requirement for demonstration of a drug’s effectiveness through adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations was added in the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments of the FDCA. Since then, FDA has published several guidances which describe how clinical trials may be designed to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of drug products and protect human subjects from unreasonable harms. FDA has issued Guidance for Industry on Botanical Drug Products (2004) and Botanical Drug Development (2016) that described how plant-derived mixtures, including multiple-herb combinations, may be developed as new drugs without further purification. Previous human experience may be used to support phase 2 clinical trials in patients, thus skipping “first-in-human” phase 1 tolerability studies. For drugs with prior human experience, animal toxicological studies may also be delayed to later phases of drug development. In phase 3 trials, patient exposure to multiple batches and multiple doses of botanical drug products is recommended in order to derive more reliable quality specifications and ensure therapeutic consistency for future marketed batches. Two botanical new drug applications (NDAs), Veregen ® (sinecatechins), for the treatment of genital warts), and Mytesi®, formerly Fulyzaq ® (crofelemer), for the treatment of HIV-related diarrhea, were approved by FDA in the past decade. The bases for these approvals will be described and will serve as successful examples to guide and encourage further development of botanicals as new drugs. Published clinical and nonclinical studies of two herbal medicines, Artemisia annua and Pelargonium sidoides , will be discussed to illustrate some of the challenges faced in clinical trial design and data reporting. Additional challenges in the development of botanical products derived from multiple herbs as fixed-dose drug combinations will also be discussed.

Duggleby (2018) has made a numerical analysis of some aspects of the wide range of phenomena we reviewed in Steele et al. (2018) and asserted " .that panspermia as proposed by Steele et al. (2018) is extremely implausible.” It seems to us that Duggleby has based his viewpoint on a quite narrow and specific model of Panspermia which he supposes to be active in the cosmos. Here we address both his conclusions and his numerical analysis. Our response therefore will be at two levels, his specific analysis and his general conclusions. In the specific section below we show that while Duggleby's numerical analysis appears in part correct it is, in the final analysis, quite irrelevant to Cosmic Panspermia. In the general response which follows we address his unsupported conclusion throughout his critique, namely that … " none of the examples mentioned by Steele et al. (2018) is decisive enough to allow no other explanation."

We review the salient evidence consistent with or predicted by the Hoyle-Wickramasinghe (H-W) thesis of Cometary (Cosmic) Biology. Much of this physical and biological evidence is multifactorial. One particular focus are the recent studies which date the emergence of the complex retroviruses of vertebrate lines at or just before the Cambrian Explosion of ∼500 Ma. Such viruses are known to be plausibly associated with major evolutionary genomic processes. We believe this coincidence is not fortuitous but is consistent with a key prediction of H-W theory whereby major extinction-diversification evolutionary boundaries coincide with virus-bearing cometary-bolide bombardment events. A second focus is the remarkable evolution of intelligent complexity (Cephalopods) culminating in the emergence of the Octopus. A third focus concerns the micro-organism fossil evidence contained within meteorites as well as the detection in the upper atmosphere of apparent incoming life-bearing particles from space. In our view the totality of the multifactorial data and critical analyses assembled by Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe and their many colleagues since the 1960s leads to a very plausible conclusion - life may have been seeded here on Earth by life-bearing comets as soon as conditions on Earth allowed it to flourish (about or just before 4.1 Billion years ago); and living organisms such as space-resistant and space-hardy bacteria, viruses, more complex eukaryotic cells, fertilised ova and seeds have been continuously delivered ever since to Earth so being one important driver of further terrestrial evolution which has resulted in considerable genetic diversity and which has led to the emergence of mankind. ispartof: PROGRESS IN BIOPHYSICS & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY vol:136 pages:3-23 ispartof: location:England status: published

Electronic health records (EHRs) can be a major tool in the quest to decrease costs and timelines of clinical trial research, generate better evidence for clinical decision making, and advance health care. Over the past decade, EHRs have increasingly offered opportunities to speed up, streamline, and enhance clinical research. EHRs offer a wide range of possible uses in clinical trials, including assisting with prestudy feasibility assessment, patient recruitment, and data capture in care delivery. To fully appreciate these opportunities, health care stakeholders must come together to face critical challenges in leveraging EHR data, including data quality/completeness, information security, stakeholder engagement, and increasing the scale of research infrastructure and related governance. Leaders from academia, government, industry, and professional societies representing patient, provider, researcher, industry, and regulator perspectives convened the Leveraging EHR for Clinical Research Now! Think Tank in Washington, DC (February 18-19, 2016), to identify barriers to using EHRs in clinical research and to generate potential solutions. Think tank members identified a broad range of issues surrounding the use of EHRs in research and proposed a variety of solutions. Recognizing the challenges, the participants identified the urgent need to look more deeply at previous efforts to use these data, share lessons learned, and develop a multidisciplinary agenda for best practices for using EHRs in clinical research. We report the proceedings from this think tank meeting in the following paper.

Objective Sexual dysfunction is an important side effect of serotonergic antidepressants, as it often leads to treatment nonadherence. However, sexual dysfunction is often underestimated in clinical trials submitted in support of drug approval. This is because such assessments are based mainly on unsolicited reporting. As a result, the characterization of sexual adverse events has become an important component of many of the development programs for new antidepressants. The purpose of this article is to discuss US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) current thinking on possible approaches to characterizing the effects of drugs on sexual function in depression drug trials. Participants FDA's Division of Psychiatry Products, together with the Division of Biometrics I, in particular the authors of this article. Evidence The above-referenced FDA divisions conducted a regulatory science forum on measuring sexual dysfunction in depression trials. Consensus process Considering the evidence presented and discussed at the forum, we developed our preliminary regulatory views on the scientific issues with regard to study design, study population, use of available scales, testing strategy, and statistical analysis plans. Conclusions Sexual dysfunction associated with antidepressants is an important entity that should be adequately assessed during clinical trials with the use of available instruments and described in product labels. It is important to appreciate the need for a positive control to establish assay sensitivity for any trial evaluating the impact of antidepressant medications on sexual function. Methodological improvement and additional data as well as experience with these approaches will be needed prior to further consideration of a formal regulatory guidance document by the FDA.

We agree on the common goal of finding safe and effective treatments for Ebola virus disease (EVD) “using rigorous methods and simple but properly designed clinical trials” (World Health Organizati...

Children have historically been underrepresented or, indeed, omitted entirely, in drug trials, leading to a relative dearth of evidence in support of appropriate drug treatments for many pediatric diseases.[1][1], [2][2] Recent legislative initiatives in the United States and the European Union (EU

Combination therapy has proven to be an effective strategy for treating many of the world's most intractable diseases. A growing number of investigators in academia, industry, regulatory agencies, foundations and advocacy organizations are interested in pursuing a combination approach to treating Alzheimer's disease. A meeting co-hosted by the Accelerate Cure/Treatments for Alzheimer's Disease Coalition, the Critical Path Institute and the Alzheimer's Association addressed challenges in designing clinical trials to test multiple treatments in combination and outlined a roadmap for making such trials a reality.

Rare disease drug development is a rapidly expanding field. Clinical researchers in rare diseases face many challenges when conducting trials in small populations. Disease natural history is often poorly understood and the ability to detect clinically meaningful outcomes requires understanding of their rate of occurrence and variability, both of which contribute to difficulties in powering a study. Standard trial designs are not optimized to obtain adequate safety and efficacy data from small numbers of patients, so alternative designs (enrichment, crossover, adaptive, N-of 1) need to be considered. The affected patients can be hard to identify, especially early in the course of their disease, are generally geographically dispersed, and are often children. Trials are frequently conducted on an international scale and may be subject to complex or multiple regulatory agency oversights and may be affected by local customs, cultures, and practices. A basic understanding of the FDA programs supporting development of drugs for rare diseases is provided by this review and the role of early consultation with the FDA is emphasized. Of recent FDA New Molecular Entities (NME) approvals, 41% (17 approvals) in 2014, 47% (21 approvals) in 2015, and 41% (9 approvals) in 2016 were for rare disease indications. Through effective interactions and collaborations with physicians, institutions, and patient groups, sponsors have been successful in bringing new treatments to market for individuals affected by rare diseases. Challenges to drug development have been overcome through the focused efforts of patients/families, non-profit patient advocacy groups, drug developers, and regulatory authorities.