Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1983 Orphan Drug Act in the United States (US) changed the landscape for development of therapeutics for rare or orphan diseases, which collectively affect approximately 300 million people worldwide, half of whom are children. The act has undoubtedly accelerated drug development for orphan diseases, with over 6,400 orphan drug applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1983 to 2023, including 350 drugs approved for over 420 indications. Drug development in this population is a global and collaborative endeavor. This position paper of the International Society for Central Nervous System Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM) describes some potential best practices for the involvement of key stakeholder feedback in the drug development process. Stakeholders include advocacy groups, patients and caregivers with lived experience, public and private research institutions (including academia and pharmaceutical companies), treating clinicians, and funders (including the government and independent foundations). The authors articulate the challenges of drug development in orphan diseases and propose methods to address them. Challenges range from the poor understanding of disease history to development of endpoints, targets, and clinical trials designs, to finding solutions to competing research priorities by involved parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The International Society of CNS Clinical Trials Methodology (ISCTM) Working Group on Rare Disease/Orphan Drug Development is dedicated to improving and streamlining trials to best develop new treatments for rare diseases. The rarity of these disorders requires a drug development strategy that differs from those of nonrare conditions. Rare disease drug development programs are challenged with small sample sizes, heterogeneous clinical presentations, and few, if any, off-the-shelf endpoints. When disease-specific clinical endpoints exist, they might not be validated and are typically not well known or broadly used in clinical practice. This paper aims to provide an overview of the special issues surrounding endpoints in rare disease drug development, with guidance, practical applications, and discussion. Discussion: The paper covers regulatory considerations in endpoint selection; identification of relevant measurement domains; methods of quantifying clinical meaningfulness; incorporation of patient- and clinician-reported outcomes; considerations for global clinician- and patient-rated clinical assessments; cognition assessment challenges in rare diseases; translation considerations; training, standardization, and calibration of assessors; and endpoint quality assurance. Additionally, it provides guidance and resources for those involved in drug development for rare diseases. Conclusion: In keeping with the mission of ISCTM and the rare disease/orphan drug development working group, this article is designed to encourage thoughtful consideration and provide insight and guidance to promote and further efforts in in central nervous system (CNS) rare disease drug development efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To raise awareness and propose a good practice guide for translating and adapting any hearing-related questionnaire to be used for comparisons across populations divided by language or culture, and to encourage investigators to publish detailed steps. Design: From a synthesis of existing guidelines, we propose important considerations for getting started, followed by six early steps: (1) Preparation, (2, 3) Translation steps, (4) Committee Review, (5) Field testing and (6) Reviewing and finalising the translation. Study sample: Not applicable. Results: Across these six steps, 22 different items are specified for creating a questionnaire that promotes equivalence to the original by accounting for any cultural differences. Published examples illustrate how these steps have been implemented and reported, with shared experiences from the authors, members of the International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology and TINnitus research NETwork. Conclusions: A checklist of the preferred reporting items is included to help researchers and clinicians make informed choices about conducting or omitting any items. We also recommend using the checklist to document these decisions in any resulting report or publication. Following this step-by-step guide would promote quality assurance in multinational trials and outcome evaluations but, to confirm functional equivalence, large-scale evaluation of psychometric properties should follow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]