scholarly journals Translational Models and Tools to Reduce Clinical Trials and Improve Regulatory Decision‐Making for QTc and Proarrhythmia Risk (ICH E14/S7B Updates)

Author(s):  
David G. Strauss ◽  
Wendy W. Wu ◽  
Zhihua Li ◽  
John Koerner ◽  
Christine Garnett

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Herder

Canada has become a global leader in publicly releasing clinical data behind therapeutic products since 2019. Disclosure of clinical data is, however, limited to the point of product approval. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the limitations of such a point-in-time approach to transparency. As interventions are rapidly authorized for clinical trials or clinical use through emergency mechanisms despite weak evidence of safety and effectiveness, we argue that the current level of transparency must be expanded in order to mitigate potential harms to trial participants and patients, improve the reliability of clinical trials, and ultimately preserve trust in regulatory decision-making. Using existing legal powers, we explain how the Canadian regulator can and should seek to expand data transparency by making pre-clinical studies, clinical trial protocols, informed consent forms, interim analyses, and other information transparent upstream in the research process and throughout the product’s lifecycle.



2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 1s-47s
Author(s):  
Real World Data Workshop Group CSPS/Health Canada

Real world data (RWD) and real world evidence (RWE) are playing increasing roles in health-care decisions. Real world data are routinely employed to support reimbursement and coverage decisions for drugs and devices. More recently, clinical trials incorporating pragmatic designs and observational studies are considered to supplement traditional clinical trials (e.g., randomized clinical trials). Regulatory agencies and large co-operative groups including academia and industry are exploring whether leveraging big databases such as electronic medical records and claims databases can be used to garner clinical insights extending beyond those gained from randomized controlled studies. Whether RWE can ultimately replace or improve traditional clinical trials is the big question. The workshop held on December 3, 2019 at Health Canada included presenters from regulatory agencies, industry and academia. Health Canada, US FDA and European Medicine Agency presented current thinking, draft frameworks and guidance available in the public domain. While the three agencies might be at different stages of utilizing RWE for regulatory decision making, the consensus is not whether RWE would be used but when and how it can be incorporated into regulatory decision making while maintaining a high evidentiary bar. The complexity of data sourcing, curating databases, aligning on common data models, illustrated by high-profile work conducted as part of Sentinel, DSEN, OHDSI and Duke-Margolis initiatives, was presented and discussed during the workshop, creating great learning opportunities for the attendees. The design and analysis of RWE studies were compared and contrasted to those of RCTs. While there are gaps, they are closing quickly as novel analytical methods are employed and innovative ways of curating data, including natural language processing and artificial intelligence, are explored.   This proceeding contains summaries of information presented by the speakers, including current highlights about the use of RWE in regulatory decision making. In the world where the uptake of “big data” in everyday life is happening at unprecedented speed, we can expect RWE to be a fast-moving area and with the potential for big impact in health-care decision making in the years to come.



Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (22) ◽  
pp. 3191-3196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Weise ◽  
Pekka Kurki ◽  
Elena Wolff-Holz ◽  
Marie-Christine Bielsky ◽  
Christian K. Schneider

Abstract Despite the establishment of a specific approval pathway, the issuance of detailed scientific guidelines for the development of similar biological medicinal products (so-called “biosimilars”) and the approval of several biosimilars in the European Union, acceptance of biosimilars in the medical community continues to be low. This is especially true in therapeutic indications for which no specific clinical trials with the biosimilar have been performed and that have been licensed based on extrapolation of efficacy and safety data from other indications. This article addresses the concerns frequently raised in the medical community about the use of biosimilars in such extrapolated indications and explains the underlying scientific and regulatory decision making including some real-life examples from recently licensed biosimilars.



2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 1s-47s
Author(s):  
Real World Data Workshop Group CSPS/Health Canada

Real world data (RWD) and real world evidence (RWE) are playing increasing roles in health-care decisions. Real world data are routinely employed to support reimbursement and coverage decisions for drugs and devices. More recently, clinical trials incorporating pragmatic designs and observational studies are considered to supplement traditional clinical trials (e.g., randomized clinical trials). Regulatory agencies and large co-operative groups including academia and industry are exploring whether leveraging big databases such as electronic medical records and claims databases can be used to garner clinical insights extending beyond those gained from randomized controlled studies. Whether RWE can ultimately replace or improve traditional clinical trials is the big question. The workshop held on December 3, 2019 at Health Canada included presenters from regulatory agencies, industry and academia. Health Canada, US FDA and European Medicine Agency presented current thinking, draft frameworks and guidance available in the public domain. While the three agencies might be at different stages of utilizing RWE for regulatory decision making, the consensus is not whether RWE would be used but when and how it can be incorporated into regulatory decision making while maintaining a high evidentiary bar. The complexity of data sourcing, curating databases, aligning on common data models, illustrated by high-profile work conducted as part of Sentinel, DSEN, OHDSI and Duke-Margolis initiatives, was presented and discussed during the workshop, creating great learning opportunities for the attendees. The design and analysis of RWE studies were compared and contrasted to those of RCTs. While there are gaps, they are closing quickly as novel analytical methods are employed and innovative ways of curating data, including natural language processing and artificial intelligence, are explored.   This proceeding contains summaries of information presented by the speakers, including current highlights about the use of RWE in regulatory decision making. In the world where the uptake of “big data” in everyday life is happening at unprecedented speed, we can expect RWE to be a fast-moving area and with the potential for big impact in health-care decision making in the years to come.



Author(s):  
Bronwyn Ashton ◽  
Cassandra Star ◽  
Mark Lawrence ◽  
John Coveney

Summary This research aimed to understand how the policy was represented as a ‘problem’ in food regulatory decision-making in Australia, and the implications for public health nutrition engagement with policy development processes. Bacchi’s ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’ discourse analysis method was applied to a case study of voluntary food fortification policy (VFP) developed by the then Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (ANZFRMC) between 2002 and 2012. As a consultative process is a legislated aspect of food regulatory policy development in Australia, written stakeholder submissions contributed most of the key documents ascertained as relevant to the case. Four major categories of stakeholder were identified in the data; citizen, public health, government and industry. Predictably, citizen, government and public health stakeholders primarily represented voluntary food fortification (VF) as a problem of public health, while industry stakeholders represented it as a problem of commercial benefit. This reflected expected differences regarding decision-making control and power over regulatory activity. However, at both the outset and conclusion of the policy process, the ANZFRMC represented the problem of VF as commercial benefit, suggesting that in this case, a period of ‘formal’ stakeholder consultation did not alter the outcome. This research indicates that in VFP, the policy debate was fought and won at the initial framing of the problem in the earliest stages of the policy process. Consequently, if public health nutritionists leave their participation in the process until formal consultation stages, the opportunity to influence policy may already be lost.



Author(s):  
Jessica M. Franklin ◽  
Kai‐Li Liaw ◽  
Solomon Iyasu ◽  
Cathy Critchlow ◽  
Nancy Dreyer


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document