Regulatory decision strategy for entry of a novel biological therapeutic with a clinically unmonitorable toxicity into clinical trials: pre-IND meetings and a case example.
(1/34)
The following material was derived from a synthesis of case histories taken from investigational new drug (IND) applications and drug sponsors' experiences, utilizing fictionalized data to avoid any resemblance to any proprietary information; any such resemblance is accidental. These examples are used as an instructional scenario to illustrate appropriate handling of a difficult toxicology issue. In this scenario, a drug caused a toxicity in animals that was detected only by histopathologic analysis; if it were to develop in patients, no conventional clinical methods could be identified to monitor for it. It is not unusual for a firm to cancel clinical development plans for a lead drug candidate that causes such a toxicity, especially if such a drug is intended for use as a chronic therapeutic in a population of patients with a chronic disease. This case synthesis was inspired by a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreement to allow such a product to proceed into clinical trials after substantive pre-IND discussions and agreement on well-considered toxicology program designs. The scientists most closely involved in the strategy development included the sponsor's toxicologist, veterinary toxicologic pathologist, and pharmacokineticist, as well as the FDA's reviewing pharmacologist. The basis of this decision was thorough toxicity characterization (1-month studies in 2 species); correlating toxicities with a particular cumulative area under the curve (AUC) in both species; identification of the most sensitive species (the species that showed the lower AUC correlating with toxicity); allometric assessment of clearance of the drug in 3 nonhuman species; construction of a model of human kinetics (based on extrapolation from animal kinetics); and finally, estimation of clinical safety factors (ratios of the human estimated cumulative AUC at the proposed clinical doses, over the animal cumulative AUC that correlated with the no adverse effect levels). Industry and FDA scientists negotiated a joint assessment of risk and benefit in patients, resulting in the FDA permitting such a compound to enter into clinical trials for a serious autoimmune disease. Such constructive, early communication starts with the pre-IND meeting, and the conduct and planning for this meeting can be very important in establishing smooth scientific and regulatory groundwork for the future of a drug under IND investigation. (+info)
Safety assessment of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: ICH and beyond.
(2/34)
Many scientific discussions, especially in the past 8 yr, have focused on definition of criteria for the optimal assessment of the preclinical toxicity of pharmaceuticals. With the current overlap of responsibility among centers within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), uniformity of testing standards, when appropriate, would be desirable. These discussions have extended beyond the boundaries of the FDA and have culminated in the acceptance of formalized, internationally recognized guidances. The work of the International Committee on Harmonisation (ICH) and the initiatives developed by the FDA are important because they (a) represent a consensus scientific opinion, (b) promote consistency, (c) improve the quality of the studies performed, (d) assist the public sector in determining what may be generally acceptable to prepare product development plans, and (e) provide guidance for the sponsors in the design of preclinical toxicity studies. Disadvantages associated with such initiatives include (a) the establishment of a historical database that is difficult to relinquish, (b) the promotion of a check-the-box approach, i.e., a tendancy to perform only the minimum evaluation required by the guidelines, (c) the creation of a disincentive for industry to develop and validate new models, and (d) the creation of state-of-the-art guidances that may not allow for appropriate evaluation of novel therapies. The introduction of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals for clinical use has often required the application of unique approaches to assessing their safety in preclinical studies. There is much diversity among these products, which include the gene and cellular therapies, monoclonal antibodies, human-derived recombinant regulatory proteins, blood products, and vaccines. For many of the biological therapies, there will be unique product issues that may require specific modifications to protocol design and may raise additional safety concerns (e.g., immunogenicity). Guidances concerning the design of preclinical studies for such therapies are generally based on the clinical indication. Risk versus benefit decisions are made with an understanding of the nature of the patient population, the severity of disease, and the availability of alternative therapies. Key components of protocol design for preclinical studies addressing the risks of these agents include (a) a safe starting dose in humans, (b) identification of potential target organs, (c) identification of clinical parameters that should be monitored in humans, and (d) identification of at-risk populations. One of the distinct aspects of the safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals is the use of relevant and often nontraditional species and the use of animal models of disease in preclinical safety evaluation. Extensive contributions were made by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to the ICH document on the safety of biotherapeutics, which is intended to provide worldwide guidance for a framework approach to the design and review of preclinical programs. Rational, scientifically sound study design and early identification of the potential safety concerns that may be anticipated in the clinical trial can result in preclinical data that facilitate use of these novel therapies for use in humans without duplication of effort or the unnecessary use of animals. (+info)
Requirements for submission of labeling for human prescription drugs and biologics in electronic format. Final rule.
(3/34)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations governing the format in which certain labeling is required to be submitted for review with new drug applications (NDAs), certain biological license applications (BLAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), supplements, and annual reports. The final rule requires that certain labeling content be submitted electronically in a form that FDA can process, review, and archive. Submitting the content of labeling in electronic format will simplify the drug labeling review process and speed up the approval of labeling changes. (+info)
Supplements and other changes to an approved application. Final rule.
(4/34)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations on supplements and other changes to an approved application to implement the manufacturing changes provision of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (the Modernization Act). The final rule requires manufacturers to assess the effects of manufacturing changes on the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of a drug or biological product as those factors relate to the safety or effectiveness of the product. The final rule sets forth requirements for changes requiring supplement submission and approval before the distribution of the product made using the change, changes requiring supplement submission at least 30 days prior to the distribution of the product, changes requiring supplement submission at the time of distribution, and changes to be described in an annual report. (+info)
Investigational new drugs: export requirements for unapproved new drug products. Final rule.
(5/34)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations on the exportation of investigational new drugs, including biological products. The final rule describes four different mechanisms for exporting an investigational new drug product. These provisions implement changes in FDA's export authority resulting from the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1996 and also simplify the existing requirements for exports of investigational new drugs. (+info)
Impact of pharmacometrics on drug approval and labeling decisions: a survey of 42 new drug applications.
(6/34)
The value of quantitative thinking in drug development and regulatory review is increasingly being appreciated. Modeling and simulation of data pertaining to pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and disease progression is often referred to as the pharmacometrics analyses. The objective of the current report is to assess the role of pharmacometrics at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in making drug approval and labeling decisions. The New Drug Applications (NDAs) submitted between 2000 and 2004 to the Cardio-renal, Oncology, and Neuropharmacology drug products divisions were surveyed. For those NDA reviews that included a pharmacometrics consultation, the clinical pharmacology scientists ranked the impact on the regulatory decision(s). Of about a total of 244 NDAs, 42 included a pharmacometrics component. Review of NDAs involved independent, quantitative evaluation by FDA pharmacometricians, even when such analysis was not conducted by the sponsor. Pharmacometric analyses were pivotal in regulatory decision making in more than half of the 42 NDAs. Of the 14 reviews that were pivotal to approval related decisions, 5 identified the need for additional trials, whereas 6 reduced the burden of conducting additional trials. Collaboration among the FDA clinical pharmacology, medical, and statistical reviewers and effective communication with the sponsors was critical for the impact to occur. The survey and the case studies emphasize the need for early interaction between the FDA and sponsors to plan the development more efficiently by appreciating the regulatory expectations better. (+info)
Current good manufacturing practice regulation and investigational new drugs. Direct final rule.
(7/34)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for human drugs, including biological products, to exempt most investigational "Phase 1" drugs from complying with the requirements in FDA's regulations. FDA will instead exercise oversight of production of these drugs under the agency's general statutory CGMP authority and investigational new drug application (IND) authority. In addition, FDA is making available simultaneously with the publication of this direct final rule, a guidance document setting forth recommendations on approaches to CGMP compliance for the exempted Phase 1 drugs. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a companion proposed rule, under FDA's usual procedure for notice-and-comment rulemaking, to provide a procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event the agency receives any significant adverse comments and withdraws this direct final rule. The companion proposed rule and direct final rule are substantively identical. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled "INDs--Approaches to Complying With CGMP During Phase 1" to provide further guidance on the subject. (+info)
The quantity and quality of worldwide new drug introductions, 1982-2003.
(8/34)
We examined trends in the introduction of new chemical entities (NCEs) worldwide from 1982 through 2003. Although annual introductions of NCEs decreased over time, introductions of high-quality NCEs (that is, global and first-in-class NCEs) increased moderately. Both biotech and orphan products enjoyed tremendous growth, especially for cancer treatment. Country-level analyses for 1993-2003 indicate that U.S. firms overtook their European counterparts in innovative performance or the introduction of first-in-class, biotech, and orphan products. The United States also became the leading market for first launch. (+info)