The EU regulatory network and emerging trends – a review of quality, safety and clinical development programmes

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-99
Author(s):  
Marta Zuccarelli ◽  
Benjamin Micallef ◽  
Mark Cilia ◽  
Anthony Serracino-Inglott ◽  
John-Joseph Borg
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Clinical Development ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Safety Concerns ◽  
Emerging Trends ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

Introduction/Study Objectives: The development of biosimilars is challenging due to the complexity of the active substances as well as the strict regulatory requirements to show similarity with a reference medicinal product. This review aims to describe the regulatory experience of approving biosimilars in the European Union (EU) within the EU framework, identify emerging trends in the EU regulatory pathway when approving biosimilars and discuss where the EU biosimilar framework is heading. Methods: Marketing authorisation applications (MAAs) submitted up to 2019 were retrieved from the public domain. The European public assessment report database was searched for approved biosimilars and clinical development programmes of biosimilars belonging to the same class were reviewed. In order to observe if biosimilars released onto the market increased safety concerns, we compared disproportionate adverse event reports pre- and post-licensure. Results: Up to December 2019, 90 MAAs were submitted and 53 biosimilars were approved for 14 different biologicals. Total number of clinical trials (both phase I and III) steadily goes up driven by an increase number of approvals in later years, while the average number of both phase I and III trials decreased over time with some with Pegfilgrastim biosimilars being approved without conducting any phase III clinical trials. No new safety concerns were identified from the analysis of disproportionate adverse event reports. Discussion: Clinical development programmes of biosimilars and the requirements set for biosimilars approval are changing over time. Biosimilars approved seem to be as well tolerated as the reference products when approved based on stringent regulatory requirements. Conclusion: Regulation of biosimilars is progressing as more knowledge is gained.

scholarly journals AB0332 IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AND IMMONOMODULATING AGENTS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CLINICAL TRIALS AND THEIR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT STAGE

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1464.1-1465
Author(s):  
J. Blaess ◽  
J. Walther ◽  
J. E. Gottenberg ◽  
J. Sibilia ◽  
L. Arnaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
B Cells ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Clinical Development ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Jak Inhibitors ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Immunomodulating Drugs

Background:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most frequent chronic inflammatory diseases with an incidence of 0.5% to 1%. Therapeutic arsenal of RA has continuously expanded in recent years with the recent therapeutic progress with the arrival of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biological (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic (tsDMARDs), JAK inhibitors. However, there are still some unmet needs for patients who do not achieve remission and who continue to worsen despite treatments. Of note, only approximately 40% of patients are ACR70 responders, in most randomized controlled trials. For these patients, finding new therapeutic avenues is challenging.Objectives:The objective of our study was to analyze the whole pipeline of immunosuppressive and immunomodulating drugs evaluated in RA and describe their mechanisms of action and stage of clinical development.Methods:We conducted a systematic review of all drug therapies in clinical development in RA in 17 databases of international clinical trials. Inclusion criterion: study from one of the databases using the keywords “Rheumatoid arthritis” (search date: June 1, 2019). Exclusion criteria: non-drug trials, trials not related to RA or duplicates. We also excluded dietary regimen or supplementations, cellular therapies, NSAIDs, glucorticoids or their derivatives and non-immunosuppressive or non-immunomodulating drugs. For each csDMARD, bDMARD and tsDMARD, we considered the study at the most advanced stage. For bDMARDs, we did not take into account biosimilars.Results:The research identified 4652 trials, of which 242 for 243 molecules met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The developed molecules belong to csDMARDs (n=21), bDMARDs (n=117), tsDMARDs (n=105).Among the 21 csDMARDs molecules: 8 (38%) has been withdrawn, 4 (19%) are already labelled in RA (hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, methotrexate and sulfasalazine) and 9 (43%) are in development: 1 (11%) is in phase I/II, 5 (56%) in phase II, 3 (33%) in phase IV.Among the 117 bDMARDs molecules: 69 (59%) has been withdrawn, 9 (8%) are labeled in RA (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, sarilumab, tocilizumab) and 39 (33%) are in development: 9 (23%) in phase I, 3 (8%) in phase I/II, 21 (54%) in phase II, 5 (12%) are in phase III, 1 (3%) in phase IV. bDMARDs currently under development target B cells (n=4), T cells (n=2), T/B cells costimulation (n=2),TNF alpha (n=2), Interleukine 1 or his receptor (n=3), Interleukine 6 or his receptor (n=7), Interleukine 17 (n=4), Interleukine 23 (n=1), GM-CSF (n=1), other cytokines or chemokines (n=5), integrins or adhesion proteins (n=3), interferon receptor (n=1) and various other targets (n=4).Among the 105 tsDMARDs molecules: 64 (61%) has been withdrawn, 6 (6%) JAK inhibitors, have just been or will probably soon be labelled (baricitinib, filgotinib, peficitinib, tofacitinib and upadacitinib), 35 (33%) are in development: 8 (24%) in phase I, 26 (74%) in phase II, 1 (3%) in phase III and. tsDMARDs currently under development target tyrosine kinase (n=12), janus kinase (JAK) (n=3), sphingosine phostate (n=3), PI3K pathway (n=1), phosphodiesterase-4 (n=3) B cells signaling pathways (n=3) and various other targets (n=10).Conclusion:A total of 242 therapeutic trials involving 243 molecules have been or are being evaluated in RA. This development does not always lead to new treatments since 141 (58%) have already been withdrawn. Hopefully, some of the currently evaluated drugs will contribute to improve the therapeutic management of RA patients, requiring a greater personalization of therapeutic strategies, both in the choice of molecules and their place in therapeutic sequences.Disclosure of Interests:Julien Blaess: None declared, Julia Walther: None declared, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Grant/research support from: BMS, Pfizer, Consultant of: BMS, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Co., Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Jean Sibilia: None declared, Laurent Arnaud: None declared, Renaud FELTEN: None declared

scholarly journals Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daria Kim ◽  
Joerg Hasford
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Risks ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Significant Extent ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Trial Participants ◽  
Clinical Trials Regulation ◽  
Clinical Trial Regulation ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The problem of wasteful clinical trials has been debated relentlessly in the medical community. To a significant extent, it is attributed to redundant trials – studies that are carried out to address questions, which can be answered satisfactorily on the basis of existing knowledge and accessible evidence from prior research. This article presents the first evaluation of the potential of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014, which entered into force in 2014 but is expected to become applicable at the end of 2021, to prevent such trials. Having reviewed provisions related to the trial authorisation, we propose how certain regulatory requirements for the assessment of trial applications can and should be interpreted and applied by national research ethics committees and other relevant authorities in order to avoid redundant trials and, most importantly, preclude the unnecessary recruitment of trial participants and their unjustified exposure to health risks.

scholarly journals Unconventional Anticancer Agents: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Joyce Kuo ◽  
Barrie R. Cassileth
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Off Label

Purpose A substantial number of cancer patients turn to treatments other than those recommended by mainstream oncologists in an effort to sustain tumor remission or halt the spread of cancer. These unconventional approaches include botanicals, high-dose nutritional supplementation, off-label pharmaceuticals, and animal products. The objective of this study was to review systematically the methodologies applied in clinical trials of unconventional treatments specifically for cancer. Methods MEDLINE 1966 to 2005 was searched using approximately 200 different medical subject heading terms (eg, alternative medicine) and free text words (eg, laetrile). We sought prospective clinical trials of unconventional treatments in cancer patients, excluding studies with only symptom control or nonclinical (eg, immune) end points. Trial data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized protocol. Results We identified 14,735 articles, of which 214, describing 198 different clinical trials, were included. Twenty trials were phase I, three were phase I and II, 70 were phase II, and 105 were phase III. Approximately half of the trials investigated fungal products, 20% investigated other botanicals, 10% investigated vitamins and supplements, and 10% investigated off-label pharmaceuticals. Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20% of phase II trials reported a statistical design. Of the 27 different agents tested in phase III, only one agent had a prior dose-finding trial, and only for three agents was the definitive study initiated after the publication of phase II data. Conclusion Unconventional cancer treatments have not been subject to appropriate early-phase trial development. Future research on unconventional therapies should involve dose-finding and phase II studies to determine the suitability of definitive trials.

scholarly journals Self-Replicating RNA Viruses for RNA Therapeutics

Molecules ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 3310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Lundstrom
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Tumor Cells ◽  
Neutralizing Antibodies ◽  
Ebola Virus ◽  
Vaccine Development ◽  
Rna Viruses ◽  
Antibody Responses ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials

Self-replicating single-stranded RNA viruses such as alphaviruses, flaviviruses, measles viruses, and rhabdoviruses provide efficient delivery and high-level expression of therapeutic genes due to their high capacity of RNA replication. This has contributed to novel approaches for therapeutic applications including vaccine development and gene therapy-based immunotherapy. Numerous studies in animal tumor models have demonstrated that self-replicating RNA viral vectors can generate antibody responses against infectious agents and tumor cells. Moreover, protection against challenges with pathogenic Ebola virus was obtained in primates immunized with alphaviruses and flaviviruses. Similarly, vaccinated animals have been demonstrated to withstand challenges with lethal doses of tumor cells. Furthermore, clinical trials have been conducted for several indications with self-amplifying RNA viruses. In this context, alphaviruses have been subjected to phase I clinical trials for a cytomegalovirus vaccine generating neutralizing antibodies in healthy volunteers, and for antigen delivery to dendritic cells providing clinically relevant antibody responses in cancer patients, respectively. Likewise, rhabdovirus particles have been subjected to phase I/II clinical trials showing good safety and immunogenicity against Ebola virus. Rhabdoviruses have generated promising results in phase III trials against Ebola virus. The purpose of this review is to summarize the achievements of using self-replicating RNA viruses for RNA therapy based on preclinical animal studies and clinical trials in humans.

scholarly journals Mechanisms of drug resistance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at different levels

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiali Du ◽  
Jichun Gu ◽  
Ji Li
Keyword(s):  
Drug Resistance ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Solid Tumours ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Exploitation And Exploration ◽  
Different Levels

Abstract Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and the mortality of patients with PDAC has not significantly decreased over the last few decades. Novel strategies exhibiting promising effects in preclinical or phase I/II clinical trials are often situated in an embarrassing condition owing to the disappointing results in phase III trials. The efficacy of the current therapeutic regimens is consistently compromised by the mechanisms of drug resistance at different levels, distinctly more intractable than several other solid tumours. In this review, the main mechanisms of drug resistance clinicians and investigators are dealing with during the exploitation and exploration of the anti-tumour effects of drugs in PDAC treatment are summarized. Corresponding measures to overcome these limitations are also discussed.

scholarly journals Ethical Issues and Barriers for Multi-National Paediatric Clinical Trials: The Challenging Experience of the DEEP Project

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4820-4820
Author(s):  
Viviana Giannuzzi ◽  
Mariagrazia Felisi ◽  
Hugo Devlieger ◽  
Aurelio Maggio ◽  
George Papanikolaou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
National Level ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Paediatric Trial ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Eu

Introduction: The procedures and requirements for the clinical trial application (CTA) to Ethics Committees (ECs) and/or Competent Authorities (CAs) are not fully harmonised, and this is even more evident when non-EU countries are involved. This lack of harmonisation makes more difficult the approach in the case of 'small populations', such as children and patients affected by rare diseases. A phase III efficacy-safety comparative trial (DEEP-2) involving paediatric patients affected by transfusion dependent haemoglobinopathies from seven European and non-European countries (Albania, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, Egypt, Tunisia) was carried out in the context of a FP7 project (HEALTH-F4-2010-G.A. n. 261483) and included in an agreed Paediatric Investigation Plan. Aims: The aims of this paper are to describe in a complex multi-national/multi-ethnic framework the different provisions and procedures to authorise a paediatric trial in EU/non-EU countries and to evaluate the possible impact of the following key indicators on the timing of ECs approval and CAs authorisation: complexity of the national/local provisions and procedures to authorise a paediatric trial, including the number of ECs and CAs to be addressed; number and type of additional local/national documentation; number of queries from CAs and ECs; geographic setting (EU and non-EU). Methods: The following information was collected from official websites and through a survey addressed to Principal Investigators: The regulatory and legal frameworks in force at the time of the submission of DEEP-2 in each involved country;The procedures required at local/national level (i.e. number of ECs and CAs to be addressed, parallel or subsequent submission to the CA and the EC, preparation of the CTA form and documents required from CAs and ECs);The timing of ECs approval and CAs authorisation, including number and types of queries, were collected from DEEP-2 Trial Master File. Descriptive analysis, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test and General Linear Model (GLM) analysis were used to describe results and to analyse significance of the considered indicators. Results: In the EU countries, relevant legislative acts apply and include GCP and specific procedures for paediatric trials, in non-EU countries GCP guidelines apply but have not been implemented in the national laws regulating clinical trials. Moreover, within the 4 EU Member States a different approach was in place, even if under the same rules (i.e. Directive 2001/20/EC as implemented in the national law) with distinctive documents required for the CTA in almost all the EU countries compared with the EC provisions. The CTAs were performed in the period June 2012 - September 2015 in 23 trial sites. The EC approvals and CA authorisations were issued between January 2013 - September 2015. In the EU countries, the authorisation process was completed within 7,3 to 33,8 months (median = 15 months), while in non-EU countries, the authorisation process was completed by 7 months (median = 4 months) (figure 1). In particular, the comparison of the CA time authorisation shows a significant difference between EU and non-EU clusters (p = 0.001); however, if the statistical model is adjusted for the number of EC requests as covariate, the difference is not significant. Thus, it seems that the main factor influencing the time for EC approval is the number of requests for changes/clarifications (mainly on informed consent/assent, study protocol, insurance) (figure 2). Conclusion: Delays in completion of the authorisation phase in many countries seems to be a relevant issue and the timeframes for the authorisation in EU countries are not compliant with the European requirements (60 days for single opinion release and 30 days for its acceptance, as stated in Directive 2001/20/EC). The main reasons for delay is the complexity of the procedures and the requests from the ECs/CAs. In non-EU countries, procedures are different and faster with less requests from ECs and CAs. The upcoming application of a stronger set of rules, CT-Regulation (EU) 536/2014, is expected to harmonise practices in Europe and possibly outside Europe. The final aim of this change should be to assure a good balance between a timely approval and a high-level of children protection. Disclosures Reggiardo: CVBF: Consultancy. Tricta:ApoPharma: Employment.

scholarly journals Adverse Event Burden Score—A Versatile Summary Measure for Cancer Clinical Trials

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 3251
Author(s):  
Jennifer G. Le-Rademacher ◽  
Shauna Hillman ◽  
Elizabeth Storrick ◽  
Michelle R. Mahoney ◽  
Peter F. Thall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Treatment Cycle ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Weighted Sum ◽  
Summary Measure ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Over Time

This article introduces the adverse event (AE) burden score. The AE burden by treatment cycle is a weighted sum of all grades and AEs that the patient experienced in a cycle. The overall AE burden score is the total AE burden the patient experienced across all treatment cycles. AE data from two completed Alliance multi-center randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, with different AE profiles (NCCTG 97-24-51: 176 patients, and A091105: 83 patients), were utilized for illustration. Results of the AE burden score analyses corroborated the trials’ primary results. In 97-24-51, the overall AE burden for patients on the treatment arm was 2.2 points higher than those on the placebo arm, with a higher AE burden for patients who went off treatment early due to AE. Similarly, in A091105, the overall AE burden was 1.6 points higher on the treatment arm. On the placebo arms, the AE burden in 97-24-51 remained constant over time; and increased in later cycles in A091105, likely attributable to the increase in disease morbidity. The AE burden score enables statistical comparisons analogous to other quantitative endpoints in clinical trials, and can readily accommodate different trial settings, diseases, and treatments, with diverse AE profiles.

Dealing With a Deluge of Data: An Assessment of Adverse Event Data on North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trials

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (36) ◽  
pp. 9275-9281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle R. Mahoney ◽  
Daniel J. Sargent ◽  
Michael J. O'Connell ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Paul Schaefer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Subset ◽  
North Central ◽  
Normal Limits ◽  
Life Threatening

Purpose Adverse events (AEs) are monitored in clinical trials for patient safety, to satisfy reporting requirements, and develop safety profiles. Recently, much attention has been placed on the reporting of serious AEs (SAEs) that are either life threatening or lethal in clinical trials. However, SAEs comprise a small subset of all AE data collected for trials; the majority of AE data collected are routine AEs (RAEs) regarding non–life-threatening events. We assessed the utility of the RAE data collected, relative to the volume. Patients and Methods We surveyed the RAE data from 26 North Central Cancer Treatment Group coordinated trials. Results A total of 8,318 (11%) of 75,598 of RAEs required queries. Of these, 86% were protocol-required RAEs, 83% of RAEs required per protocol were within normal limits (eg, platelets) or not present, and 61% of extra AEs were mild. One fifth of RAEs were considered unlikely to be related or unrelated to treatment. Overall, 3% of events were severe, life threatening, or caused death. Only 1% of RAE data reported required expedited reporting (eg, via Adverse Event Expedited Reporting System). Results indicate that 72% of RAEs would be eliminated if only the maximum severity per patient and type were required. These results were validated in a large phase III trial. Conclusion The majority of RAEs identified, transcribed, and entered are not clinically important. Our data suggest that reducing the number of AEs monitored will affect substantially neither overall patient safety nor compromise evaluation of regimens undergoing testing. We present several considerations for such a reduction in data collection, as well as a policy that we have used to address the deluge of RAE data.

Association of serious adverse events with type and sponsorship of clinical trials in patients with lymphoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6576-6576
Author(s):  
T. L. Koeneke ◽  
J. O. Armitage ◽  
P. J. Bierman ◽  
R. Bociek ◽  
J. M. Vose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Large Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Early Phase Clinical Trials

6576 Background: Arguments have been made against early phase clinical trials (CTs) as possibly being unethical because its risk may outweigh its potential benefits. Whether this is true in the light of newer biological treatment for cancer is unknown. We therefore examined the association between the incidence of serious adverse events according to type and sponsorship of CTs in pts with lymphoma. Methods: All IRB approved CTs at the University of Nebraska Medical Center from Jan 2000-June 2005 classified as therapeutic for lymphoma involving a biological agent were included. CTs were classified in two ways: by type of CTs (phase I vs II vs III) and sponsorship (Investigator-initiated vs Industry-initiated. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between types/sponsorship of CTs with the incidence of IRB serious adverse events (SAE; no vs yes) and fatal adverse events (FAE; no vs yes) while adjusting for age, sex, race, lymphoma type and stage, interval from dx to tx, co-morbid conditions, and previous tx. Results: 357 pts with lymphoma enrolled in 29 CTs were included. The median age of pt was 54y (21–88). 41% of the pts had follicular lymphoma, 36% diffuse large cell, 14% mantle cell and 9% were other types. 59% had Stage IV lymphoma. 71% of the pts participated in investigator-initiated CTs, while 29% participated in industry-initiated CTs. 21% of pts were enrolled in phase I, 65% in phase II and 14% in phase III studies. SAEs were seen in 49 pts (14%), while FAEs occurred in 13 pts (4%). Multivariate analysis showed the risk of having SAE was independent of the type or sponsor of CTs. Additionally, the risk of FAEs was not associated with the type of CTs. However, the risk of having FAEs was less in investigator- iniatiated CTs than in industry-iniatiated trials (Odds Ratio: 0.13 (95% CI, 0.03–0.61, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Our study showed that in CTs involving biological treatments, the incidence of SAEs was not associated with the type or sponsor of CTs suggesting that use of biological agents in phase I studies may have similar risks to phase II/III trials. Further studies should be done in other types of malignancies to evaluate further the decrease frequency of FAEs seen in investigator-initiated trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document