Proceedings of the 2013 CINP summit: innovative partnerships to accelerate CNS drug discovery for improved patient care.

Central nervous system (CNS) diseases and, in particular, mental health disorders, are becoming recognized as the health challenge of the 21(st) century. Currently, at least 10% of the global population is affected by a mental health disorder, a figure that is set to increase year on year. Meanwhile, the rate of development of new CNS drugs has not increased for many years, despite unprecedented levels of investment. In response to this state of affairs, the Collegium Internationale Neuro-Psychopharmacologicum (CINP) convened a summit to discuss ways to reverse this disturbing trend through new partnerships to accelerate CNS drug discovery. The objectives of the Summit were to explore the issues affecting the value chain (i.e. the chain of activities or stakeholders that a company engages in/with to deliver a product to market) in brain research, thereby gaining insights from key stakeholders and developing actions to address unmet needs; to identify achievable objectives to address the issues; to develop action plans to bring about measurable improvements across the value chain and accelerate CNS drug discovery; and finally, to communicate recommendations to governments, the research and development community, and other relevant stakeholders. Summit outputs include the following action plans, aligned to the pressure points within the brain research-drug development value chain: Code of conduct dealing with conflict of interest issues, Prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment, Linking science and regulation, Patient involvement in trial design, definition of endpoints, etc., Novel trial design, Reproduction and confirmation of data, Update of intellectual property (IP) laws to facilitate repurposing and combination therapy (low priority), Large-scale, global patient registries, Editorials on nomenclature, biomarkers, and diagnostic tools, and Public awareness, with brain disease advocates to attend G8 meetings and World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual meetings in Davos, Switzerland. In this context Professor Barbara Sahakian recently made a formal presentation at the World Economic Forum (see Barbara Sahakian Blog from April 11, 2014, at https://forumblog.org/people/barbara-sahakian/) Full details of the discussions that formed the bases for these actions are presented in the main body of this document.

Application of Bayesian approaches in drug development: starting a virtuous cycle.

The pharmaceutical industry and its global regulators have routinely used frequentist statistical methods, such as null hypothesis significance testing and p values, for evaluation and approval of new treatments. The clinical drug development process, however, with its accumulation of data over time, can be well suited for the use of Bayesian statistical approaches that explicitly incorporate existing data into clinical trial design, analysis and decision-making. Such approaches, if used appropriately, have the potential to substantially reduce the time and cost of bringing innovative medicines to patients, as well as to reduce the exposure of patients in clinical trials to ineffective or unsafe treatment regimens. Nevertheless, despite advances in Bayesian methodology, the availability of the necessary computational power and growing amounts of relevant existing data that could be used, Bayesian methods remain underused in the clinical development and regulatory review of new therapies. Here, we highlight the value of Bayesian methods in drug development, discuss barriers to their application and recommend approaches to address them. Our aim is to engage stakeholders in the process of considering when the use of existing data is appropriate and how Bayesian methods can be implemented more routinely as an effective tool for doing so.

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.

Treatment of corticosteroid-responsive autoimmune inner ear disease with methotrexate: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: A number of therapies have been proposed for the long-term management of corticosteroid-responsive, rapidly progressive, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (autoimmune inner ear disease [AIED]). Methotrexate has emerged as the benchmark agent but has not been rigorously evaluated for hearing improvement in patients with AIED. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of long-term methotrexate in maintaining hearing improvements achieved with glucocorticoid (prednisone) therapy in patients with AIED. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from February 3, 1998, to November 5, 2001, of 67 patients with rapidly progressive, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss at 10 tertiary care centers in the United States. INTERVENTION: Randomization to either oral methotrexate (15 to 20 mg/wk; n = 33) or placebo (n = 34), in combination with an 18-week prednisone taper. Follow-up examinations, including audiometric evaluation, were performed at 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 52 weeks, or until hearing loss was documented. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Maintenance of hearing improvement achieved from prednisone treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients (57.8%) enrolled in the prednisone challenge experienced hearing improvement. Twenty-five patients (37%) experienced hearing improvements in both ears. Of the individuals who reached study end points, 24 (80%) of 30 end points were because of measured hearing loss in the methotrexate group and 29 (93.5%) of 31 end points were because of measured hearing loss in the placebo group (P =.15). Methotrexate was no more effective than placebo in maintaining the hearing improvement achieved with prednisone treatment (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-2.17; P =.30). CONCLUSION: Methotrexate does not appear to be effective in maintaining the hearing improvement achieved with prednisone therapy in patients with AIED.

Securing the future of drug discovery for central nervous system disorders.

Innovative partnerships among researchers, patients, regulators, payors and industry are needed to reinvigorate drug discovery for central nervous system disorders. Here, we summarize plans of the Collegium Internationale Neuro-Psychopharmacologicum (CINP) to achieve this goal.

Safety of high-dose corticosteroids for the treatment of autoimmune inner ear disease.

OBJECTIVE: To report the adverse effects associated with prolonged high-dose prednisone for the treatment of autoimmune inner ear disease (AIED). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective data collected as part of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial for the treatment of corticosteroid-responsive AIED with methotrexate. SETTING: Tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: One hundred sixteen patients with rapidly progressive, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. INTERVENTION: All patients completed a 1-month course of prednisone (60 mg/d). In Phase 2, 67 patients with improvement in hearing underwent a monitored 18-week prednisone taper, resulting in 22 weeks of prednisone therapy at an average dose of 30 mg per day. Thirty-three patients were randomized to receive methotrexate in Phase 2. Thirty-four patients received prednisone and placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adverse events (AE) in patients treated with prednisone only. RESULTS: Of 116 patients, 7 had to stop prednisone therapy during the 1-month challenge phase due to AE. Of 34 patients, 5 were unable to complete the full 22-week course of prednisone due to AE. The most common AE was hyperglycemia, which occurred in 17.6% of patients participating in Phase 2. Weight gain was also common, with a mean increase in body mass index of 1.6 kg/m2 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-2.3) during the 22-week steroid course. Patients entering Phase 2 were followed for a mean of 66 weeks. No fractures or osteonecrosis were reported. CONCLUSION: Although high-dose corticosteroids are associated with known serious side effects, prospective data in the literature are limited. The present study suggests that with appropriate patient selection, monitoring, and patient education, high-dose corticosteroids are a safe and effective treatment of AIED.