Associations Between Surrogate Markers and Clinical Outcomes for Nononcologic Chronic Disease Treatments.

Importance: Surrogate markers are increasingly used as primary end points in clinical trials supporting drug approvals. Objective: To systematically summarize the evidence from meta-analyses, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and pooled analyses (hereafter, meta-analyses) of clinical trials examining the strength of association between treatment effects measured using surrogate markers and clinical outcomes in nononcologic chronic diseases. Data sources: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table and MEDLINE from inception to March 19, 2023. Study Selection: Three reviewers selected meta-analyses of clinical trials; meta-analyses of observational studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers extracted correlation coefficients, coefficients of determination, slopes, effect estimates, or results from meta-regression analyses between surrogate markers and clinical outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Correlation coefficient or coefficient of determination, when reported, was classified as high strength (r ≥ 0.85 or R2 ≥ 0.72); primary findings were otherwise summarized. Results: Thirty-seven surrogate markers listed in FDA's table and used as primary end points in clinical trials across 32 unique nononcologic chronic diseases were included. For 22 (59%) surrogate markers (21 chronic diseases), no eligible meta-analysis was identified. For 15 (41%) surrogate markers (14 chronic diseases), at least 1 meta-analysis was identified, 54 in total (median per surrogate marker, 2.5; IQR, 1.3-6.0); among these, median number of trials and patients meta-analyzed was 18.5 (IQR, 12.0-43.0) and 90 056 (IQR, 20 109-170 014), respectively. The 54 meta-analyses reported 109 unique surrogate marker-clinical outcome pairs: 59 (54%) reported at least 1 r or R2, 10 (17%) of which reported at least 1 classified as high strength, whereas 50 (46%) reported slopes, effect estimates, or results of meta-regression analyses only, 26 (52%) of which reported at least 1 statistically significant result. Conclusions and Relevance: Most surrogate markers used as primary end points in clinical trials to support FDA approval of drugs treating nononcologic chronic diseases lacked high-strength evidence of associations with clinical outcomes from published meta-analyses.

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit. Objective: To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval. Results: A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy). Conclusions and Relevance: Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

Patient-centric Comparability Assessment of Biopharmaceuticals.

The comparability assessment of a biological product after implementing a manufacturing process change should involve a risk-based approach. Process changes may occur at any stage of the product lifecycle: early development, clinical manufacture for pivotal trials, or post-approval. The risk of the change to impact product quality varies. The design of the comparability assessment should be adapted accordingly. A working group reviewed and consolidated industry approaches to assess comparability of traditional protein-based biological products during clinical development and post-approval. The insights compiled in this review article encompass topics such as a risk-evaluation strategy, the design of comparability studies, definition of assessment criteria for comparability, holistic evaluation of data, and the regulatory submission strategy. These practices can be leveraged across the industry to help companies in design and execution of comparability assessments, and to inform discussions with global regulators.

Magnitude of effect and sample size justification in trials supporting anti-cancer drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Approval of drugs is based on randomized trials observing statistically significant superiority of an experimental agent over a standard. Statistical significance results from a combination of effect size and sampling, with larger effect size more likely to translate to population effectiveness. We assess sample size justification in trials supporting cancer drug approvals. We identified US FDA anti-cancer drug approvals for solid tumors from 2015 to 2019. We extracted data on study characteristics, statistical plan, accrual, and outcomes. Observed power (Pobs) was calculated based on completed study characteristics and observed hazard ratio (HRobs). Studies were considered over-sampled if Pobs > expected with HRobs similar or worse than expected or if Pobs was similar to expected with HRobs worse than expected. We explored associations with over-sampling using logistic regression. Of 75 drug approvals (reporting 94 endpoints), 21% (20/94) were over-sampled. Over-sampling was associated with immunotherapy (OR: 5.5; p = 0.04) and associated quantitatively but not statistically with targeted therapy (OR: 3.0), open-label trials (OR: 2.5), and melanoma (OR: 4.6) and lung cancer (OR: 2.17) relative to breast cancer. Most cancer drug approvals are supported by trials with justified sample sizes. Approximately 1 in 5 endpoints are over-sampled; benefit observed may not translate to clinically meaningful real-world outcomes.

US FDA's Dose Optimization Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments of Oncology Approvals and the Impact on Product Labels from 2010 to 2022: An Emerging Landscape from Traditional to Novel Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Dose optimization is a focal point of many US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals. We sought to understand the impact of the FDA's Postmarketing Commitments/Postmarketing Requirements (PMCs/PMRs) on dose optimization and prescriber labeling for oncology drugs. METHODS: Publicly available information was aggregated for all FDA oncology drug approvals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2022. Study completion dates were compared to product labeling before and after PMC/PMR fulfillment dates to evaluate labeling changes associated with dose-related PMCs/PMRs. Data were analyzed individually (2010-2015 and 2016-2022) due to differences in available information. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, 14 of 42 (33.3%) new molecular entities (NMEs) had dose-related PMCs/PMRs, with 6 of 14 (42.9%) resulting in a relevant label change. From 2016 to 2022, of the 314 new or supplemental applications approved, 21 had dose-related PMCs/PMRs (6.7%), which trended upward over time; 71.4% of dose-related PMCs/PMRs were NMEs. Kinase inhibitors (KIs) and antibody/peptide drug conjugates (ADCs/PDCs) were the most affected drug classes. Ten of the 21 approvals with dose-related PMCs/PMRs fulfilled their dosing PMCs/PMRs, and 3 of the 10 (30%) had relevant label changes. CONCLUSION: Most dose-related PMRs/PMCs were issued for NMEs. Of these, KIs and ADCs/PDCs were highly represented, reflecting their novelty and greater uncertainty around their safety profile. PMC/PMR issuance broadly increased over time. With the implementation of the FDA's Project Optimus in 2021, it remains to be seen whether fewer dose-related PMCs/PMRs emerge in future due to enhanced dose optimization in the premarketing setting.

An Evaluation of the Swissmedic Regulatory Framework for New Active Substances.

BACKGROUND: Swissmedic is a major regulatory agency that has been benchmarking its timelines for 20 years. To better understand the Swissmedic review times and to examine whether measures introduced to accelerate the process were effective, a retrospective analysis was undertaken. The objective was to provide a breakdown of where time is spent in the phases of Swissmedic's approval process (validation, scientific assessment, authorisation) and how this compared to other major authorities. METHODS: Data on Swissmedic, EMA and FDA product approvals were collected from websites or through direct communication, using a standardised CIRS method and milestones previously identified, focusing on new active substances approved 2019-2021. RESULTS: In 2019, 2020, and 2021, Swissmedic median approval times were 520, 470, and 392 days, respectively. The decrease over this time was mainly observed in the Authorisation Phase and can be attributed to lower proportions of applications with multiple "labelling loops", in addition to shorter times for final label negotiation. While Swissmedic had the longest overall approval time (447 days) compared to EMA (428) and FDA (244), the timelines were more comparable when considering only the agency's time spent on the scientific assessment, with Swissmedic at 194 days, EMA at 218 days, and FDA at 184 days. CONCLUSIONS: These observations represent an important analysis of Swissmedic regulatory activity timelines, demonstrate the impact of process improvements, and emphasise the importance of measuring timelines. Swissmedic will continue to expedite its processes also by promoting international collaborations with like-minded authorities.

A descriptive analysis of postmarketing requirement studies and clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), the FDA has the authority to require applicants to conduct postmarketing studies or clinical trials. These postmarketing requirements (PMRs) provide additional data on the safety of the drug product. The purpose of the study was to conduct a descriptive analysis of FDAAA PMRs and the resulting regulatory actions. METHODS: This study evaluated FDAAA PMRs established between 2013 and 2019. We used the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) to map preferred terms (PTs) for serious risks associated with the PMRs. Relevant documents available in the FDA's document archiving, reporting, and regulatory tracking system (DARRTS), including but not limited to internal letters and reviews, documents submitted by applicants, and publicly available data sources were assessed for data collection of study elements. RESULTS: Of the 1079 new FDAAA PMRs established between January 01, 2013, and December 31, 2019, 82% (n = 884) were associated with new drug applications (NDAs) and 18% (n = 195) with biologic license applications (BLAs). Most PMRs were established at the time of drug approval (73%, n = 789) compared to post-approval (27%, n = 290). The majority of PMRs had an open status (59%, n = 639) and 41% (n = 440) were closed. The median time from the PMR establishment date to submission of the results to the FDA was 690 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 748 days) for 167 completed clinical trials and 483 days (IQR: 603 days) for 241 completed studies. Approximately 53% (180/339) of fulfilled FDAAA PMRs resulted in labeling changes. CONCLUSIONS: FDAAA PMRs are useful in informing postmarket safety of drugs. Most FDAAA PMRs were established at the time of drug approval, reflecting safety signals identified during the review of the marketing application, and over half of fulfilled FDAAA PMRs resulted in regulatory action.

Cautionary note on regional consistency evaluation in multiregional clinical trials with binary outcomes.

Multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) have become increasingly common during the development of new drugs to obtain simultaneous drug approvals worldwide. When planning MRCTs, a major statistical challenge is determination of the regional sample size. In general, the regional sample size must be determined as the sample size such that the regional consistency probability, defined as the probability of meeting the regional consistency criterion, is greater than a prespecified value. The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare proposed two criteria for regional consistency. Moreover, many researchers have proposed corresponding closed-form formulas for calculating regional consistency probabilities when the primary outcome is continuous. Although some researchers have argued that those formulas are also applicable to cases with binary outcomes, it remains questionable whether such an argument can be true. Based on simulation results, we demonstrate that the existing formulas are inappropriate for binary cases, even when the regional sample size is sufficiently large. To address this issue, we develop alternative formulas and use simulation to show that they provide accurate regional consistency probabilities. Furthermore, we present an application of our proposed formulas for an MRCT of advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

Do the Outcomes of Clinical Efficacy Trials Matter in Regulatory Decision-Making for Biosimilars?

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing body of evidence supporting a more flexible approach in clinical data requirements for the approval of more complex biosimilar substances such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to further analyse the role of quality/chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) and clinical data for the conclusion on biosimilarity and the decision on marketing authorisation (MA). METHODS: In the present study, we analysed the MA applications (MAAs) of all 33 mAbs and three fusion proteins evaluated by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between July 2012 and November 2022 with special emphasis on all submitted rituximab (four products) and trastuzumab (seven products) biosimilar candidates, including withdrawn applications. For the two withdrawn applications, the comparative efficacy trials suggested biosimilarity, but the quality/CMC package was not accepted by EMA. We therefore investigated whether a negative MAA outcome could have been predicted based on the evidence generated in the quality/CMC packages, regardless of clinical trial data. For this purpose, we reviewed the respective European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) or withdrawal assessment reports, and the first regulatory assessments for all these 36 MAAs (i.e. day 120 of the centralized procedure), which are not publicly available. During EMA review, where significant issues are identified which would preclude a marketing authorisation, these issues are raised as questions to the applicant and are classified as major objections (MO). RESULTS: In 67% of cases, the outcome of the quality and clinical assessment was the same, i.e. both the quality and clinical assessments either supported approval or did not support approval. In 11% of cases, MO were identified in the quality part of the submission but not in the clinical data. In 22% of cases, MO were raised on the clinical data package but not on the quality data. However, we found no instance where seemingly negative clinical data, including failed efficacy trials, led to a negative overall decision. In each instance, the failure to confirm similar clinical performance in all investigated aspects was eventually viewed as not being related to the biosimilar per se but as being due to imbalances in the trial arms, immaturity of secondary endpoint results, change in the reference product, or even chance findings. Furthermore, when performing an in-depth analysis of the quality and clinical packages of trastuzumab and rituximab biosimilars, we found that in no case were clinical trial data necessary to resolve residual uncertainties regarding the quality part. CONCLUSION: The results further support the argument that sufficient evidence for biosimilarity can be obtained from a combination of analytical and functional testing and pharmacokinetic studies which may also generate immunogenicity data. This calls into question the usefulness of comparative efficacy studies for the purposes of regulatory decision-making when approving biosimilar mAbs and fusion proteins.

Progress and Challenges of the New Conditional Approval Process in China: A Pooled Analysis From 2018 to 2021.

PURPOSE: To speed the review and approval of drugs and address pressing medical needs, China began to advocate for the implementation of the conditional approval process in 2017. We aimed to assess the implementation of the conditional approval process in China and further analyze its potential problems and future challenges. METHODS: This study examined the new drug approval with conditions in China between 2018 and 2021, based on an analysis of drug technical review documents from the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE). Using publicly available information, we further analyzed the characteristics and results of pivotal clinical trials of conditionally approved drugs, postmarketing study requirements and progress. FINDINGS: Between 2018 and 2021, China conditionally approved 50 drugs, with 80% (40/50) being antineoplastic agents. Premarketing pivotal trials predominantly used single-arm clinical trials (83.7%, 41/49), while postmarketing trials mainly employed randomized controlled clinical trials (81.0%, 34/42). In oncology drugs, conditionally approved drugs with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as primary endpoints achieved significant clinical value in terms of efficacy. However, there were also pivotal clinical trials with response rate (RR) as the primary endpoint that demonstrated lower clinical benefits (8.9% of drugs with RR below 20%). Safety analysis revealed substantial variations in the proportions of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) across pivotal trials (Grade ≥ 3 AEs: 9.0%-99.0%; SAEs: 8.0%-83.0%). For nononcology drugs, pivotal trials also demonstrated an acceptable risk-benefit ratio but exhibited methodological issues. Meanwhile, Most postmarketing studies lacked completion date restrictions (43.2%, 17/47), and no requirements were specified for the transition to full approval. Furthermore, surrogate endpoints were primarily utilized both pre- and postmarketing, but the rational selection of surrogate endpoints remains to be investigated. IMPLICATIONS: The conditional approval process expedites patient access to drugs for serious diseases. However, challenges pertaining to evidence assessment during approval and design flaws in postmarketing studies exist in China's conditional approval system, necessitating future improvements.

Scientific considerations in the regulatory approval of generic (or biosimilar) version of enoxaparin sodium - A lifesaving carbohydrate polymer.

Enoxaparin sodium (Clexane®/Klexane®/Lovenox®) is one amongst the few drugs that have assumed a central role as drug of treatment and/or prevention against thromboembolic complications during COVID-19. The increase in demand resulting in many generic (or biosimilar) versions entering the market has increased the risks of quality and safety (including immunogenicity) related issues. Under the circumstances, development of stringent regulatory approaches has received much attention as investigation of new drug delivery systems for improved therapeutic activity. As one of the measures to increase quality testing and ensure uninterrupted supply of this life-saving drug globally, determination of enoxaparin molecular weight (MW) has been added in the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) monograph for enoxaparin sodium. In addition, the presence of a unique 1,6-anhydro-ring structure at the reducing end of about 15-25% of the poly (oligo) saccharide chains of the generic (or biosimilar) product has been set as a mandatory requirement. This article presents an overview of the scientific considerations in the quality manufacturing and testing of the generic (or biosimilar) enoxaparin for regulatory review and approval. In certain cases of strong analytical similarity (structural and functional), abandonment of in vivo testing in animals and humans represents a major advancement in the approval of generic (or biosimilar) version of innovator enoxaparin sodium (lovenox®, injections).

Oncology drug lag in Japan: has it improved over the last decade?

BACKGROUND: Existing studies and statistics on the drug lag between Japan and the United States (US) for anti-cancer drugs indicate that it has decreased, whereas more drugs are left unapproved in Japan. This study aimed to quantify the impact of unapproved drugs on the drug lag. METHODS: Information on 136 anti-cancer drugs approved in the US between 2011 and 2022 was collected. The approval lag, defined as the number of days from the date of approval in the US to the date of approval in Japan, was calculated for all selected drugs, and the median was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The approval lag for drugs not approved in Japan was treated as censored data. Factors potentially associated with the approval lag were explored using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The median approval lags for the first half-period (2011-2016) and the last half-period (2017-2022) were 961 days (2.6 years) and 1547 days (4.2 years), respectively (Log-rank test: p = 0.0687). The participation of Japan in the global pivotal trial was associated with a shorter approval lag, and new drug applications by non-Japanese companies that did not rank in the global sales top 20 were associated with a longer approval lag. CONCLUSIONS: Drug lag has not decreased over the last decade. The percentage of pivotal trials for US approval that included Japan has increased but should be further increased in the future. Japan may require a scheme to encourage smaller non-Japanese companies to include Japan in their global clinical development plan.

Trends in the approval of cancer therapies by the FDA in the twenty-first century.

The cancer treatment landscape has changed dramatically since the turn of the century, resulting in substantial improvements in outcomes for patients. This Review summarizes trends in the approval of oncology therapeutic products by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from January 2000 to October 2022, based on a categorization of these products by their mechanism of action and primary target. Notably, the rate of oncology indication approvals has increased in this time, driven by approvals for targeted therapies, as has the rate of introduction of new therapeutic approaches. Kinase inhibitors are the dominant product class by number of approved products and indications, yet immune checkpoint inhibitors have the second most approvals despite not entering the market until 2011. Other trends include a slight increase in the share of approvals for biomarker-defined populations and the emergence of tumour-site-agnostic approvals. Finally, we consider the implications of the trends for the future of oncology therapeutic product development, including the impact of novel therapeutic approaches and technologies.

Biosimilars in the Treatment of Retinal Disease in the United States.

Biosimilars have recently emerged into the vitreoretinal pharmaceutical market. This review defines biosimilars, discusses the approval process, and reviews the benefits, risks, and controversies regarding biosimilars. This review also discusses ranibizumab biosimilars that have recently received United States Food and Drug Administration approval in the United States and discusses anti-vascular endothelial growth factor biosimilars that are in development. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:362-366.].

Patient-reported outcome measures in drugs for neurological conditions approved by European Medicines Agency 2017-2022.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory agencies have been responsive to public demand for inclusion of the patient experience in evaluating and approving therapies. Over the years, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become increasingly prevalent in clinical trial protocols; however, their influence on regulators, payers, clinicians, and patients' decision-making is not always clear. We recently conducted a cross-sectional study aimed at investigating the use of PROMs in new regulatory approvals of drugs for neurological conditions between 2017 and 2022 in Europe. METHODS: We reviewed European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and recorded on a predefined data extraction form whether they considered PROMs, their characteristics (e.g., primary/secondary endpoint, generic/specific instrument) and other relevant information (e.g., therapeutic area, generic/biosimilar, orphan status). Results were tabulated and summarized by means of descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 500 EPARs related to authorized medicines between January 2017 and December 2022, 42 (8%) concerned neurological indications. Among the EPARs of these products, 24 (57%) reported any use of PROMs, typically considered as secondary (38%) endpoints. In total, 100 PROMs were identified, of which the most common were the EQ-5D (9%), the SF-36 (6%), or its shorter adaptation SF-12, the PedsQL (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other disease areas, neurology is one where the use of patient-reported outcomes evidence is inherently part of the clinical evaluation and for which core outcome sets exist. Better harmonization of the instruments recommended for use would facilitate the consideration of PROMs at all stages in the drug development process.

Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016-2018: a cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of clinical study report (CSR) documents published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and for included pivotal trials, to quantify the timeliness of access to trial results from CSRs compared with conventional published sources. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of CSR documents published by the EMA from 2016 to 2018. METHODS: CSR files and medication summary information were downloaded from the EMA. Individual trials in each submission were identified using document filenames. Number and length of documents and trials were determined. For pivotal trials, trial phase, dates of EMA document publication and matched journal and registry publications were obtained. RESULTS: The EMA published documents on 142 medications that were submitted for regulatory drug approval. Submissions were for initial marketing authorisations in 64.1%. There was a median of 15 (IQR 5-46) documents, 5 (IQR 2-14) trials and 9629 (IQR 2711-26,673) pages per submission, and a median of 1 (IQR 1-4) document and 336 (IQR 21-1192) pages per trial. Of all identified pivotal trials, 60.9% were phase 3 and 18.5% were phase 1. Of 119 unique submissions to the EMA, 46.2% were supported by a single pivotal trial, with 13.4% based on a single pivotal phase 1 trial. No trial registry results were identified for 26.1% trials, no journal publications for 16.7% and 13.5% of trials had neither. EMA publication was the earliest information source for 5.8% of pivotal trials, available a median 523 days (IQR 363-882 days) before the earliest publication. CONCLUSIONS: The EMA Clinical Data website contains lengthy clinical trial documents. Almost half of submissions to the EMA were based on single pivotal trials, many of which were phase 1 trials. CSRs were the only source and a timelier source of information for many trials. Access to unpublished trial information should be open and timely to support decision-making for patients.

Safety Surveillance During Drug Development: Comparative Evaluation of Existing Regulations.

Drug safety monitoring is essential for developing efficient and safe treatments. It starts with preclinical toxicology studies and continues with the observation and analysis of potentially harmful effects in humans throughout the whole drug life cycle. Safety surveillance during the clinical phase is of paramount importance for protecting the health of clinical trial (CT) participants at a period when relatively little is known about the drug safety profile, and for reassuring that detected risks are minimized when the product obtains marketing approval. This review aimed to investigate current safety surveillance methods during drug development worldwide, in order to identify potential gaps and opportunities for amelioration. To this end, international guidelines, standards, and local legislations about CTs were reviewed and compared. Our review revealed common strategies, mainly in alignment with international guidelines, especially concerning the systematic collection, assessment, and expedition of adverse events by investigators and sponsors and the preparation of periodic aggregate safety reports by sponsors, as a means to inform health authorities (HAs) about the evolving benefit-risk balance of the investigational product. Inconsistencies in safety surveillance mainly concerned local expedited reporting requirements. Significant gaps were identified in the methodologies for aggregate analyses and the responsibilities of HAs. Addressing the regulatory discrepancies and harmonizing the safety surveillance processes at a global level would increase the usability of safety data accumulated by clinical studies worldwide, thus enabling and hopefully accelerating the development of safe and efficient drug therapies.