Personalized reproductive medicine: regulatory considerations.

Personalized medicine has many definitions. This term is often used synonymously with precision medicine, which is defined as the classifying patients with a disease or condition based on their phenotypic findings, such as biomarkers or genomics, into subpopulations that differ in their response to a specific treatment. Personalized medicine, however, can also mean the treatment of individual patients based on many contextual factors, such as response to therapy and patient preferences, in addition to predefined phenotypic findings. Regulatory approval for the marketing of a new drug or a new indication for a marketed drug requires a positive benefit risk profile and substantial evidence of effectiveness. The indication is based on the eligibility criteria and outcomes of the clinical trial(s) underpinning the regulatory approval. For precision medicine, drugs are often developed with companion diagnostics that are necessary for selection of the subgroup of patients, in contrast to personalized medicine which may be directed at a single patient. Most drugs are approved with a fixed dosage regimen for the approved population, but some drugs and biologics are approved with instructions to tailor therapy for individual patients, whether it be dosing, combination with other therapies, or selection among a class of medications. Hence, more often than not, personalized medicine directed at individual patients is achieved through the practice of medicine rather than regulatory action.

Regional Approaches to Expedited Drug Development and Review: Can Regulatory Harmonization Improve Outcomes?

Drug regulatory agencies around the world have implemented programs to expedite drug development and review for promising new products for serious diseases. These programs are all intended to minimize delays in patient access to innovative medicines, and have used broadly similar strategies to shorten drug development and review timelines. However, they differ in many key respects, and some stakeholders have suggested that these differences create unnecessary barriers in the development and approval process, possibly leading to delays in access. In collaboration with FDA, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy convened an expert workshop to elicit feedback from a broad range of stakeholders as to whether a lack of harmonization across expedited programs is interfering with the efficient development of new products and, if so, to explore strategies for addressing these challenges. This report provides a summary of key themes and major findings from that discussion.

Overview of FDA's Expanded Access Program for Investigational Drugs.

Expanded access, also called "compassionate use," provides a pathway for patients to gain access to investigational drugs, biologics, and medical devices used to diagnose, monitor, or treat patients with serious diseases or conditions for which there are no comparable or satisfactory therapy options available outside of clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) facilitates the expanded access process; however, access to investigational treatments requires not only FDA's review and authorization but also the active involvement and cooperation of other parties, including drug companies and health care providers, in order to be successful.

Ten-Year Experience for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Part 2: FDA's Role in Ensuring Patient Safety.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the role of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in ensuring the safety of patients receiving investigational drugs under expanded access. METHODS: To better define FDA's role in the review of requests for expanded access, multiple queries of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) document tracking system were performed. The queries identified reasons for, and outcomes of, expanded access requests for investigational drugs that were either not allowed to proceed or denied over a 10-year time period. An in-depth review of a random sample of single-patient, non-emergency investigational new drug (IND) applications that were allowed to proceed was also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 99.3% of the applications for almost 9000 expanded access of an investigational drug were allowed to proceed. There were 62 requests that were either denied (38 emergency INDs) or not allowed to proceed (24 non-emergency INDs). The most common reasons for denying emergency INDs was that the patient was stable on current therapy and that it was not deemed an emergency. The most common reasons for not allowing non-emergency expanded access INDs to proceed were incomplete application, unsafe dosing, demonstrated lack of efficacy for intended use, availability of adequate alternative therapies, and inadequate information provided in the application on which to base a decision. A review of a random sample of 150 single-patient, non-emergency INDs revealed that FDA recommended changes to dosing, safety monitoring, or informed consent in 11%. CONCLUSIONS: FDA plays a significant role in the protection of patients who receive investigational drugs under expanded access. An extremely small percentage of applications received are not allowed to proceed; however, FDA provides significant input based on information that may not be available to treating physicians in order to ensure patient safety under the applications that do proceed.

Impact of Expanded Access on FDA Regulatory Action and Product Labeling.

Background: The purpose of this study is to address concerns that expanded access may negatively impact the ultimate regulatory action and product labeling for new drugs. Methods: We performed queries of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) document tracking system to determine the effect of expanded access on FDA's regulatory decision making from 2010 through 2016. We also examined product labeling to determine whether safety events occurring under expanded access had an adverse effect on the approved product labeling. Results: There were 321 regulatory decisions made by FDA, with 28% of the drugs having prior expanded access. The approval rate for drugs with expanded access (84%) was higher than those that did not (76%). None of the negative regulatory marketing decisions were based on the adverse experiences reported under expanded access. The vast majority of deaths and serious adverse events that occurred under expanded access were not interpreted by FDA to be due to the investigational drug and did not affect product labeling. There was only 1 instance, a drug-drug interaction, for which safety events occurring during expanded access alone lead to potentially adverse product labeling. Conclusions: There was no instance in which expanded access lead to a negative regulatory decision regarding a drug application, and there was only 1 instance that safety events under expanded access had a potentially negative effect on product labeling. Concern that expanded access will have a negative impact on drug development and review is not based on the evidence and is unwarranted.

Expanded Access of Investigational Drugs: The Experience of the Center of Drug Evaluation and Research Over a 10-Year Period.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the experience of the Center of Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) with expanded access of investigational drugs. METHODS: Multiple searches of CDER's document tracking system were performed to identify the number, type, and indication for all expanded access requests over the 10-year time period of January 2005 through December 2014. An additional search was performed to identify all active commercial investigational drug development programs during that time period and whether or not the clinical program was placed on hold. The two searches were then cross-referenced to identify those commercial investigational drug development programs placed on clinical hold due to serious adverse events occurring within expanded access programs. RESULTS: CDER receives over 1000 applications for expanded access each year. The majority are for single patients, roughly evenly split between emergency and nonemergency use. The vast majority, 99.7%, are allowed to proceed. The incidence of clinical holds for all commercial investigational drug development programs is 7.9%, as compared to only 0.2% related to adverse events observed in patients receiving drug treatments under expanded access. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded access program is viewed as a success from FDA's perspective based on the large number of applications processed and allowed to proceed each year. However, the actual number of patients and their health care providers that desire drug treatments available under expanded access is not known. It is exceedingly rare for a serious adverse event under expanded access to affect the development program for that drug.

Precision medicine and the changing role of regulatory agencies.

The growth of precision medicine presents challenges for the regulators of medicines, related to aspects that include the basis of evidence generation, patient involvement in the regulatory process, cost of new medicines and the need for new regulatory models. It also raises questions about the tolerance of risk, especially with early interventions for life-threatening diseases.

The Majority of Expedited Investigational New Drug Safety Reports Are Uninformative.

Sponsors of human drug and biologic products subject to an investigational new drug (IND) application are required to distribute expedited safety reports of serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions to participating investigators and the FDA to assure the protection of human subjects participating in clinical trials. On September 29, 2010, the FDA issued a final rule amending its regulations governing expedited IND safety reporting requirements that revised the definitions used for reporting and clarified when to submit relevant and useful information to reduce the number of uninformative reports distributed by sponsors. From January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2014, the FDA's Office of Hematology and Oncology Products received an average of 17,686 expedited safety reports per year. An analysis of FDA submissions by commercial sponsors covering this time period suggested a slight increase in the number of expedited safety reports per IND per year after publication of the final rule. An audit of 160 randomly selected expedited safety reports submitted to the FDA's Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in 2015 revealed that only 22 (14%) were informative. The submission of uninformative expedited safety reports by commercial sponsors of INDs continues to be a significant problem that can compromise detection of valid safety signals. Clin Cancer Res; 22(9); 2111-3. ©2016 AACR.

Partial Gland Ablation for Prostate Cancer: Report of a Food and Drug Administration, American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology Public Workshop.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the discussion that took place at a public workshop, co-sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology reviewing the current state of the art for partial gland ablation (PGA) for the management of patients with prostate cancer. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss potential indications, current available evidence, and designs for future trials to provide the evidence needed by patients and providers to decide how and when to use PGA. METHODS: A workshop evaluating PGA for prostate cancer was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, in May 2015. Invited experts representing all stakeholders and attendees discussed the regulatory development of medical products, technology available, potential indications, and designs of trials to evaluate this modality of therapy. RESULTS: The panel presented the current information on the technologies available to perform PGA, the potential indications, and results of prior consensus conferences. Use of magnetic resonance imaging for patient selection, guide therapy, and follow-up was discussed. Designs of trials to assess PGA outcomes were discussed. CONCLUSION: The general consensus was that currently available technologies are capable of selective ablation with reasonable accuracy, but that criteria for patient selection remain debatable, and long-term cancer control remains to be established in properly designed and well-performed prospective clinical trials. Concerns include the potential for excessive, unnecessary use in patients with low-risk cancer and, conversely, that current diagnostic techniques may underestimate the extent and aggressiveness of some cancers, leading to inadequate treatment.

Medical devices: US medical device regulation.

Medical devices are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Center for Devices and Radiological Health is responsible for protecting and promoting the public health by ensuring the safety, effectiveness, and quality of medical devices, ensuring the safety of radiation-emitting products, fostering innovation, and providing the public with accurate, science-based information about the products we oversee, throughout the total product life cycle. The FDA was granted the authority to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of medical devices in 1976. It does not regulate the practice of medicine. Devices are classified based on complexity and level of risk, and "pre-1976" devices were allowed to remain on the market after being classified without FDA review. Post-1976 devices of lower complexity and risk that are substantially equivalent to a marketed "predicate" device may be cleared through the 510(k) premarket notification process. Clinical data are typically not needed for 510(k) clearance. In contrast, higher-risk devices typically require premarket approval. Premarket approval applications must contain data demonstrating reasonable assurance of safety and efficacy, and this information typically includes clinical data. For novel devices that are not high risk, the de novo process allows FDA to simultaneously review and classify new devices. Devices that are not legally marketed are permitted to be used for clinical investigation purposes in the United States under the Investigational Device Exemptions regulation.

Drug and device development for localized prostate cancer: report of a Food and Drug Administration/American Urological Association public workshop.

Summary of the discussion at a public workshop cosponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Urological Association reviewing potential trial designs for product and device development for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Product development for treatment of localized prostate cancer has been stymied by the impracticality of using overall survival as an endpoint in patients with localized disease and the lack of acceptable surrogate endpoints. A workshop evaluating potential trial designs for the development of therapies for localized prostate cancer was held in San Diego, CA, in May 2013. Invited experts represented multiple stakeholders, including urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, industry, and patient advocates. The expert panel discussed development of products for all risk strata of clinically localized prostate cancer. The panel responded to specific questions from FDA, discussing trial design for patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer, focal therapy for prostate cancer, patients who have undergone definitive radiation therapy, and adjuvant therapy for patients undergoing radiation therapy or surgery. Expert commentary provided by the panel will inform a planned FDA guidance on pathways for product and device development for treatment of localized prostate cancer and will be discussed at meetings of the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. FDA intends to develop a set of principles that can be used to promote the development of new products or devices for the treatment of this disease.

Clinical trial design for the development of new therapies for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer: report of a Food and Drug Administration and American Urological Association public workshop.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the discussion at a public workshop, cosponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Urological Association, reviewing potential trial designs for the development of new therapies for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). There have been only 3 drug approvals for NMIBC in the last 30 years, and product development for this disease has been stymied by difficulties in trial design and patient accrual. METHODS: A workshop evaluating potential trial design for the development of therapies for NMIBC was held in San Diego, CA, in May 2013. Invited experts representing all stakeholders, including urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, industry, and patient advocates, discussed development of products for all risk strata of NMIBC. RESULTS: The panel responded to specific questions from the FDA, discussing eligibility criteria, efficacy endpoints, and trial design for patients with a mix of high-grade papillary disease and carcinoma in situ, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG)-refractory disease, and intermediate-risk disease. Panel members also addressed the magnitude of response that would be clinically meaningful for various disease strata and trial design options for perioperative intravesical chemotherapy instillation at the time of resection of bladder tumors. CONCLUSION: Expert commentary provided by panel members will inform a planned FDA guidance on pathways for drug and biologic development for NMIBC and will be discussed at meetings of the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. FDA intends to develop a set of principles that can be used to promote the development of new products for this disease.

Variability of semen parameters with time in placebo treated men.

PURPOSE: We describe the variability of semen parameters with time in normal men receiving placebo. We also report the impact of season and geographic region, among other variables, on these parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the placebo arms of 5 randomized, controlled trials were pooled. All trials set minimum standards for semen parameters as an eligibility criterion for entry. Semen parameters examined include volume, density, motility, total count, total motile count and morphology. Mixed model repeated measure analysis was used for statistical analysis. Coefficients of variation for each semen parameter and the percent change from baseline were calculated. RESULTS: The mean within-subject coefficient of variation for each semen parameter ranged from a low of 10% to a high of almost 50%. The contribution of season and region to variability was negligible. The reduction in variability with an increasing number of samples per time point had decreasing returns beyond 2 samples. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variation in semen parameters with time in subjects who received placebo. Variation could not be attributed to season or region. We observed a general negative trend in semen parameters in this population selected for normal baseline semen parameters, which was likely due to the placebo response or to regression toward the mean.

Use of biomarkers to assess tissue specific androgen adequacy: defining male hypogonadism.

PURPOSE: The criteria for normal testosterone have been established by expert consensus rather than by evidence. We determined whether a cutoff point for normal could be established using biomarkers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an exploratory investigation of 1,492 hypogonadal men pooled from 7 registration trials. Serum testosterone, prostate specific antigen and hematocrit were measured at baseline and after 90 days of continuous testosterone replacement therapy. RESULTS: Baseline prostate specific antigen, percent change in prostate specific antigen and hematocrit appeared to be most strongly related to baseline serum testosterone. Subgroup analysis and visual inspection of linear spline fit of these data suggested an approximate serum testosterone cutoff for normal of 300 ng/dl for percent change in hematocrit, and 200 ng/dl for baseline prostate specific antigen and percent change in prostate specific antigen. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study revealed considerable variation among individuals and target tissues in individuals. Further study should be performed using standardized assays in a broader population.

Defining the "normal" postejaculate urinalysis.

Although sperm have been shown to be present in the postejaculate urinalysis (PEU) of both fertile and infertile men, the number of sperm present in the PEU of the general population has never been well defined. The objective of this study was to describe the semen and PEU findings in both the general and infertile population, in order to develop a better appreciation for "normal." Infertile men (n = 77) and control subjects (n = 71) were prospectively recruited. Exclusion criteria included azoospermia and medications known to affect ejaculation. All men underwent a history, physical examination, semen analysis, and PEU. The urine was split into 2 containers: PEU1, the initial voided urine, and PEU2, the remaining voided urine. Parametric statistical methods were applied for data analysis to compare sperm concentrations in each sample of semen and urine between the 2 groups of men. Controls had higher average semen volume (3.3 ± 1.6 vs 2.0 ± 1.4 mL, P < .001) and sperm concentrations (112 million vs 56.2 million, P = .011), compared with infertile men. The presence of sperm in urine was common in both groups, but more prevalent among infertile men (98.7% vs 88.7%, P = .012), in whom it comprised a greater proportion of the total sperm count (46% vs 24%, P = .022). The majority of sperm present in PEU were seen in PEU1 of both controls (69%) and infertile men (88%). An association was noted between severe oligospermia (<5 million/mL) with low semen volume (<0.5 mL), and significant sperm counts in PEU (<5 million). Although infertile men tend to have a higher proportion of their total sperm in the urine compared with control, there is a large degree of overlap between the 2 populations, making it difficult to identify a specific threshold to define a positive test. Interpretation of a PEU should be directed by whether the number of sperm in the urine could affect subsequent management.

Application of an optical clearing agent during noninvasive laser coagulation of the canine vas deferens.

Development of a noninvasive vasectomy technique may eliminate male fear of complications and result in a more popular procedure. This study explores application of an optical clearing agent (OCA) to scrotal skin to reduce laser power necessary for successful noninvasive laser vasectomy and eliminate scrotal skin burns. A mixture of dimethyl sulfoxide and glycerol was noninvasively delivered into scrotal skin using a pneumatic jet device. Near-infrared laser radiation was delivered in conjunction with cryogen spray cooling to the skin surface in a canine model, ex vivo and in vivo. Burst pressure (BP) measurements were conducted to quantify strength of vas closure. A 30-min application of OCA improved skin transparency by 26+/-3%, reducing average power necessary for successful noninvasive laser vasectomy from 9.2 W without OCA (BP=291+/-31 mmHg) to 7.0 W with OCA (BP=292+/-19 mmHg). Control studies without OCA at 7.0 W failed to coagulate the vas with burst pressures (82+/-28 mmHg) significantly below typical ejaculation pressures (136+/-29 mmHg). Application of an OCA reduced the laser power necessary for successful noninvasive thermal coagulation of the vas by approximately 25%. This technique may result in use of a less expensive laser and eliminate the formation of scrotal skin burns during the procedure.