Patient-reported, observer-reported and performance outcomes in qualification procedures at the European Medicines Agency 2013-2018.

AIMS: To describe characteristics of applicant, tool, outcomes, regulatory responses and general learnings from European Medicines Agency (EMA) Qualification Procedures on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), observer-reported outcomes (ObsROs) and performance outcomes (PerfOs) finalized between January 2013 and December 2018. METHODS: Descriptive analysis, and qualitative review of the regulatory outcomes of the study procedures. RESULTS: Seventeen qualification programmes for PROs, 6 for ObsRO tools and 11 for PerfO tools were submitted by consortia, large and small/medium companies. Gastroenterology and neurology were the most frequent therapeutic areas. There was a high level of regulators' partial agreement (above 70%) with applicant's approaches with constructive input; EMA published Letters of Support for PRO (6), ObsRO (2) and PerfO (4) tools, and Qualification Opinions on PROs (2) and PerfOs (1). General issues related to Qualification Procedures on PROs raised by EU regulatorsincluded: population, appropriate studies to demonstrate ability to detect change, tool validation in interventional trials, anchoring, identification of the minimally important difference, item selection, weighting, and multiple domains. In addition, specific issues for ObsROs and PerfO tools validation are identified. CONCLUSIONS: Regulators discussed principles and challenges of validation tailored to specific setting in tool development, providing constructive feedback. Regulatory outputs supportive of further development were published in over one-third of programs. We encourage applicants intending to use or develop novel PRO, ObsRO and PerfO tools that will generate evidence for regulatory submissions on medicines to consider Qualification procedures for novel methods to seek feedback on the development and validation of these tools.

Reverse Engineering of Digital Measures: Inviting Patients to the Conversation.

Background: Digital measures offer an unparalleled opportunity to create a more holistic picture of how people who are patients behave in their real-world environments, thereby establishing a better connection between patients, caregivers, and the clinical evidence used to drive drug development and disease management. Reaching this vision will require achieving a new level of co-creation between the stakeholders who design, develop, use, and make decisions using evidence from digital measures. Summary: In September 2022, the second in a series of meetings hosted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium, and sponsored by Wellcome Trust, entitled "Reverse Engineering of Digital Measures," was held in Zurich, Switzerland, with a broad range of stakeholders sharing their experience across four case studies to examine how patient centricity is essential in shaping development and validation of digital evidence generation tools. Key Messages: In this paper, we discuss progress and the remaining barriers to widespread use of digital measures for evidence generation in clinical development and care delivery. We also present key discussion points and takeaways in order to continue discourse and provide a basis for dissemination and outreach to the wider community and other stakeholders. The work presented here shows us a blueprint for how and why the patient voice can be thoughtfully integrated into digital measure development and that continued multistakeholder engagement is critical for further progress.

EMA-FDA Parallel Scientific Advice: Optimizing Development of Medicines in the Global Age.

As medicines development continues towards a globalized approach, both the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies increasingly seek opportunities to proactively engage early in product development. The parallel scientific advice program shared by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides a mechanism for experts to concurrently engage in scientific discourse with sponsors on key issues during the development phase of new medicinal products (drugs, biologicals, vaccines, and advanced therapies).

Evolving regulatory perspectives on digital health technologies for medicinal product development.

Digital health technology tools (DHTTs) present real opportunities for accelerating innovation, improving patient care, reducing clinical trial duration and minimising risk in medicines development. This review is comprised of four case studies of DHTTs used throughout the lifecycle of medicinal products, starting from their development. These cases illustrate how the regulatory requirements of DHTTs used in medicines development are based on two European regulatory frameworks (medical device and the medicinal product regulations) and highlight the need for increased collaboration between various stakeholders, including regulators (medicines regulators and device bodies), pharmaceutical sponsors, manufacturers of devices and software, and academia. As illustrated in the examples, the complexity of the interactions is further increased by unique challenges related to DHTTs. These case studies are the main examples of DHTTs with a regulatory assessment thus far, providing an insight into the applicable current regulatory approach; they were selected by a group of authors, including regulatory specialists from pharmaceutical sponsors, technology experts, academic researchers and employees of the European Medicines Agency. For each case study, the challenges faced by sponsors and proposed potential solutions are discussed, and the benefit of a structured interaction among the different stakeholders is also highlighted.

Biomarkers in Medicines Development-From Discovery to Regulatory Qualification and Beyond.

Biomarkers are important tools in medicines development and clinical practice. Besides their use in clinical trials, such as for enrichment of patients, monitoring safety or response to treatment, biomarkers are a cornerstone of precision medicine. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) emphasised the importance of the discovery, qualification, and use of biomarkers in their Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025, which included the recommendation to enhance early engagement with biomarker developers to facilitate regulatory qualification. This study explores the journey of biomarkers through the EU regulatory system and beyond, based on a review of interactions between developers and the EMA from 2008 to 2020, as well as the use of qualified biomarkers in clinical trials. Of applicants that used early interaction platforms such as the Innovation Task Force, less than half engaged in fee-related follow-up procedures. Results showed that, as compared to companies, consortia were more likely to opt for the Qualification of Novel Methodologies procedure and engage in follow-up procedures. Our results highlight the importance of early engagement with regulators for achieving biomarker qualification, including pre-submission discussions in the context of the qualification procedure. A review of clinical trials showed that all qualified biomarkers are used in practice, although not always according to the endorsed context of use. Overall, this study highlights important aspects of biomarker qualification, including opportunities to improve the seamless support for developers by EMA. The use of qualified biomarkers in clinical trials underlines the importance of regulatory qualification, which will further enable precision medicine for the benefit of patients.

Biomarker Qualification at the European Medicines Agency: A Review of Biomarker Qualification Procedures From 2008 to 2020.

Regulatory qualification of biomarkers facilitates their harmonized use across drug developers, enabling more personalized medicine. This study reviews various aspects of the European Medicines Agency's (EMA's) biomarker qualification procedure, including frequency and outcome, common challenges, and biomarker characteristics. Our findings provide insights into the EMA's biomarker qualification process and will thereby support future applications. All biomarker-related "Qualification of Novel Methodologies for Medicine Development" procedures that started from 2008 to 2020 were included. Procedural data were extracted from relevant documents and analyzed descriptively. In total, 86 biomarker qualification procedures were identified, of which 13 resulted in qualified biomarkers. Whereas initially many biomarker qualification procedures were linked to a single company and specific drug development program, a shift was observed to qualification efforts by consortia. Most biomarkers were proposed (n = 45) and qualified (n = 9) for use in patient selection, stratification, and/or enrichment, followed by efficacy biomarkers (37 proposed, 4 qualified). Overall, many issues were raised during qualification procedures, mostly related to biomarker properties and assay validation (in 79% and 77% of all procedures, respectively). Issues related to the proposed context of use and rationale were least common yet were still raised in 54% of all procedures. While few qualified biomarkers are currently available, procedures focus increasingly on biomarkers for general use instead of those linked to specific drug compounds. The issues raised during qualification procedures illustrate the thorough discussions taking place between applicants and regulators-highlighting aspects that need careful consideration and underlining the importance of an appropriate validation strategy.

Perspectives on a Way Forward to Implementation of Precision Medicine in Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease; Results of a Stakeholder Consensus-Building Meeting.

Aim: This study aimed to identify from different stakeholders the benefits and obstacles of implementing precision medicine in diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and to build consensus about a way forward in order to treat, prevent, or even reverse this disease. Methods: As part of an ongoing effort of moving implementation of precision medicine in DKD forward, a two-day consensus-building meeting was organized with different stakeholders involved in drug development and patient care in DKD, including patients, patient representatives, pharmaceutical industry, regulatory agencies representatives, health technology assessors, healthcare professionals, basic scientists, and clinical academic researchers. The meeting consisted of plenary presentations and discussions, and small group break-out sessions. Discussion topics were based on a symposium, focus groups and literature search. Benefits, obstacles and potential solutions toward implementing precision medicine were discussed. Results from the break-out sessions were presented in plenary and formed the basis of a broad consensus discussion to reach final conclusions. Throughout the meeting, participants answered several statement and open-ended questions on their mobile device, using a real-time online survey tool. Answers to the statement questions were analyzed descriptively. Results of the open-ended survey questions, the break-out sessions and the consensus discussion were analyzed qualitatively. Results and conclusion: Seventy-one participants from 26 countries attended the consensus-building meeting in Amsterdam, April 2019. During the opening plenary on the first day, the participants agreed with the statement that precision medicine is the way forward in DKD (n = 57, median 90, IQR [75-100]). Lack of efficient tools for implementation in practice and generating robust data were identified as significant obstacles. The identified benefits, e.g., improvement of the benefit-risk ratio of treatment, offer substantive incentives to find solutions for the identified obstacles. Earlier and increased multi-stakeholder collaboration and specific training may provide solutions to alter clinical and regulatory guidelines that lie at the basis of both obstacles and solutions. At the end of the second day, the opinion of the participants toward precision medicine in DKD was somewhat more nuanced (n = 45, median 83, IQR [70-92]) and they concluded that precision medicine is an important way forward in improving the treatment of patients with DKD.

Marketing authorisation of orphan medicines in Europe from 2000 to 2013.

An analysis was performed on a data set of 157 orphan designated medicines with an outcome for marketing authorisation application (MAA) between 2000 and 2013. The intention was to understand the factors associated with marketing authorisation success, the challenges developers face regarding orphan medicine development, and how scientific advice (SA) is used during development. The results demonstrated that orphan medicines have a lower success rate compared with non-orphan medicines and that determinants for marketing authorisation success were company size and compliance with SA. Compliance with SA could help orphan medicine developers overcome clinical development challenges.

Adaptive clinical trial designs for European marketing authorization: a survey of scientific advice letters from the European Medicines Agency.

BACKGROUND: Since the first methodological publications on adaptive study design approaches in the 1990s, the application of these approaches in drug development has raised increasing interest among academia, industry and regulators. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have published guidance documents addressing the potentials and limitations of adaptive designs in the regulatory context. Since there is limited experience in the implementation and interpretation of adaptive clinical trials, early interaction with regulators is recommended. The EMA offers such interactions through scientific advice and protocol assistance procedures. METHODS: We performed a text search of scientific advice letters issued between 1 January 2007 and 8 May 2012 that contained relevant key terms. Letters containing questions related to adaptive clinical trials in phases II or III were selected for further analysis. From the selected letters, important characteristics of the proposed design and its context in the drug development program, as well as the responses of the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP)/Scientific Advice Working Party (SAWP), were extracted and categorized. For 41 more recent procedures (1 January 2009 to 8 May 2012), additional details of the trial design and the CHMP/SAWP responses were assessed. In addition, case studies are presented as examples. RESULTS: Over a range of 5½ years, 59 scientific advices were identified that address adaptive study designs in phase II and phase III clinical trials. Almost all were proposed as confirmatory phase III or phase II/III studies. The most frequently proposed adaptation was sample size reassessment, followed by dropping of treatment arms and population enrichment. While 12 (20%) of the 59 proposals for an adaptive clinical trial were not accepted, the great majority of proposals were accepted (15, 25%) or conditionally accepted (32, 54%). In the more recent 41 procedures, the most frequent concerns raised by CHMP/SAWP were insufficient justifications of the adaptation strategy, type I error rate control and bias. CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of proposed adaptive clinical trials, an overall positive opinion was given albeit with critical comments. Type I error rate control, bias and the justification of the design are common issues raised by the CHMP/SAWP.

Formation of a ternary complex among NHERF1, beta-arrestin, and parathyroid hormone receptor.

ß-Arrestins are crucial regulators of G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling, desensitization, and internalization. Despite the long-standing paradigm that agonist-promoted receptor phosphorylation is required for ß-arrestin2 recruitment, emerging evidence suggests that phosphorylation-independent mechanisms play a role in ß-arrestin2 recruitment by GPCRs. Several PDZ proteins are known to interact with GPCRs and serve as cytosolic adaptors to modulate receptor signaling and trafficking. Na(+)/H(+) exchange regulatory factors (NHERFs) exert a major role in GPCR signaling. By combining imaging and biochemical and biophysical methods we investigated the interplay among NHERF1, ß-arrestin2, and the parathyroid hormone receptor type 1 (PTHR). We show that NHERF1 and ß-arrestin2 can independently bind to the PTHR and form a ternary complex in cultured human embryonic kidney cells and Chinese hamster ovary cells. Although NHERF1 interacts constitutively with the PTHR, ß-arrestin2 binding is promoted by receptor activation. NHERF1 interacts directly with ß-arrestin2 without using the PTHR as an interface. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer studies revealed that the kinetics of PTHR and ß-arrestin2 interactions were modulated by NHERF1. These findings suggest a model in which NHERF1 may serve as an adaptor, bringing ß-arrestin2 into close proximity to the PTHR, thereby facilitating ß-arrestin2 recruitment after receptor activation.

Magnesium and the parathyroid.

The serum levels of parathyroid hormone and magnesium depend on each other in a complex manner. The secretion of parathyroid hormone by the parathyroid is physiologically controlled by the serum calcium level, but magnesium can exert similar effects. While low levels of magnesium stimulate parathyroid hormone secretion, very low serum concentrations induce a paradoxical block. This block leads to clinically relevant hypocalcemia in severely hypomagnesiemic patients. The mechanism of this effect has recently been traced to an activation of the alpha-subunits of heterotrimeric G-proteins. This activation mimicks activation of the calcium sensing receptor and thus causes inhibition of parathyroid hormone secretion. In addition to the effects of magnesium on parathyroid hormone secretion, parathyroid hormone in turn regulates magnesium homeostasis by modulating renal magnesium reabsorption. The distal convoluted tubule is of crucial importance for parathyroid hormone-regulated magnesium homeostasis.