Evaluation of US Food and Drug Administration Drug Label Recommendations for Coadministration of Antivirals and Acid-Reducing Agents.

Coadministration with acid-reducing agents (ARAs), including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine H2 -receptor antagonists (H2 blockers), and antacids has been demonstrated to reduce antiviral exposure and efficacy. Therefore, it is essential that US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug labels include recommendations to manage these drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This investigation analyzed information in FDA drug labels to manage DDIs between ARAs and antivirals approved from 1998 to 2019. To ascertain clinical adoption, we assessed whether FDA label recommendations were incorporated into current antiviral clinical practice guidelines. We identified 82 label recommendations for 43 antiviral approvals. Overall, 56.1% of recommendations were deemed clinically actionable, with the most common actionable management strategies being dose adjustment during coadministration (40.2%) and coadministration not recommended (9.8%). The sources informing DDI recommendations were clinical DDI studies (59.8%) and predictions of altered exposure (40.2%). Antivirals with low aqueous solubility were more likely to have label recommendations and were more commonly investigated using clinical DDI studies (P < 0.01). For recommendations informed by clinical DDI studies, changes in drug exposure were associated with actionable label recommendations (P < 0.01). The frequency of exposure changes in clinical DDI studies was similar across antiviral indications, but exposure changes were numerically higher for antacids (71.4%) relative to PPIs (42.9%) and H2 blockers (28.6%). Of DDI pairs identified within drug labels, 76.8% were included in guidelines, and recommended management strategies were concordant in 90.5% of cases. Our findings demonstrate that current regulatory oversight mostly (but not completely) results in actionable label recommendations to manage DDIs for high-risk antivirals.

Accelerating Drug Development in Pediatric Oncology With the Clinical Pharmacology Storehouse.

Pediatric drug development is a challenging process due to the rarity of the population, the need to meet regulatory requirements across the globe, the associated uncertainty in extrapolating data from adults, the paucity of validated biomarkers, and the lack of systematic testing of drugs in pediatric patients. In oncology, pediatric drug development has additional challenges that have historically delayed availability of safe and effective medicines for children. In particular, the traditional approach to pediatric oncology drug development involves conducting phase 1 studies in children once the drug has been characterized and in some cases approved for use in adults. The objective of this article is to describe clinical pharmacology factors that influence pediatric oncology trial design and execution and to highlight efficient approaches for designing and expediting oncology drug development in children. The topics highlighted in this article include (1) study design considerations, (2) updated dosing approaches, (3) ways to overcome the significant biopharmaceutical challenges unique to the oncology pediatric population, and (4) use of data analysis strategies for extrapolating data from adults, with case studies. Finally, suggestions for ways to use clinical pharmacology approaches to accelerate pediatric oncology drug development are provided.

Pharmacokinetics of Upadacitinib With the Clinical Regimens of the Extended-Release Formulation Utilized in Rheumatoid Arthritis Phase 3 Trials.

Upadacitinib is a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor under development for the treatment of several inflammatory disorders including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Upadacitinib was administered in the phase 2 RA trials primarily as twice-daily regimens of an immediate-release (IR) formulation. The upadacitinib extended-release (ER) formulation was developed to enable once-daily dosing. In the present study, upadacitinib pharmacokinetics were characterized after the administration of single and multiple once-daily doses of the ER formulation in healthy subjects relative to single and multiple twice-daily doses of the IR formulation. Increase in upadacitinib exposure was dose-proportional over the evaluated 15- to 30-mg ER dose range. Single 15- and 30-mg ER doses provided equivalent AUC0-inf compared with single 12- and 24-mg IR doses, respectively. A high-fat breakfast increased upadacitinib ER Cmax and AUC0-inf by only 20% and 17%, respectively, relative to fasting conditions. The median time to peak plasma concentrations was 2 to 4 hours for the ER formulation, and steady state was achieved by day 4 of once-daily dosing. Doses of 15 and 30 mg once daily using the ER formulation provided equivalent AUC0-24 , comparable Cmax and Cmin , and a fluctuation index over a 24-hour period at steady state similar to 6 and 12 mg twice daily, respectively, using the IR formulation. These results supported the use of upadacitinib 15- and 30-mg doses of the ER formulation in the phase 3 trials in RA.

Industry Perspective on Standardizing Food-Effect Studies for New Drug Development.

Investigating the effect of food on bioavailability during the development of an oral drug product is of prime importance because it has major implications on the study design of the clinical trials and dosing and administration recommendations. For modified-release formulations that exhibit dose dumping when administered with food, this may result in clinical concerns around safety and efficacy. In this article, we provide an overview of the various considerations in our opinion that impact the design and conduct of food-effect studies. We summarize the various recommendations from the different regulatory agencies and provide specific suggestions on study conduct in terms of statistical design, timing of studies, subject selection, and type and caloric content of the meal. We also discuss the role of modeling and simulation. Finally, we present an interpretation of the results of food-effect studies in addition to dosing and labeling recommendations in relation to regulatory guidance documents.

Application of Exposure-Response Analyses to Establish the Pharmacodynamic Similarity of a Once-Daily Regimen to an Approved Twice-Daily Dosing Regimen for the Treatment of HCV Infection.

The triple direct-acting antiviral (3-DAA) regimen (two co-formulated tablets of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir once daily and one tablet of dasabuvir twice daily) for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection has been reformulated for once-daily administration containing all three active DAAs (3QD regimen). Two bioequivalence studies compared the 3-DAA and 3QD regimens. In study 1, fed, single-, and multiple-dose crossover comparisons revealed exposures for drug components that were slightly outside the bioequivalence criteria, i.e., 21 to 29% lower dasabuvir C trough, paritaprevir C max, and ritonavir C max. In study 2, fed and fasted single-dose crossover comparisons demonstrated a large impact of food on exposures, confirming the product's labeling requirement for administration only with food, and revealed a lack of bioequivalence under fasting conditions. Exposure-response analyses using efficacy data from phase 2/3 studies of the 3-DAA regimen demonstrated that the lower dasabuvir C trough for the 3QD regimen (under fed condition) would have minimal impact on sustained virologic response at week 12 post-treatment (SVR12). Thus, the pharmacodynamic similarity between the regimens was established and the analyses provided the basis for regulatory approval of the 3QD regimen to treat patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection.

New era in drug interaction evaluation: US Food and Drug Administration update on CYP enzymes, transporters, and the guidance process.

Predicting clinically significant drug interactions during drug development is a challenge for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. Since the publication of the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) first in vitro and in vivo drug interaction guidance documents in 1997 and 1999, researchers and clinicians have gained a better understanding of drug interactions. This knowledge has enabled the FDA and the industry to progress and begin to overcome these challenges. The FDA has continued its efforts to evaluate methodologies to study drug interactions and communicate recommendations regarding the conduct of drug interaction studies, particularly for CYP-based and transporter-based drug interactions, to the pharmaceutical industry. A drug interaction Web site was established to document the FDA's current understanding of drug interactions (http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/drugInteractions/default.htm). This report provides an overview of the evolution of the drug interaction guidances, includes a synopsis of the steps taken by the FDA to revise the original drug interaction guidance documents, and summarizes and highlights updated sections in the current guidance document, Drug Interaction Studies-Study Design, Data Analysis, and Implications for Dosing and Labeling.

Impact of pharmacometrics on drug approval and labeling decisions: a survey of 42 new drug applications.

The value of quantitative thinking in drug development and regulatory review is increasingly being appreciated. Modeling and simulation of data pertaining to pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and disease progression is often referred to as the pharmacometrics analyses. The objective of the current report is to assess the role of pharmacometrics at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in making drug approval and labeling decisions. The New Drug Applications (NDAs) submitted between 2000 and 2004 to the Cardio-renal, Oncology, and Neuropharmacology drug products divisions were surveyed. For those NDA reviews that included a pharmacometrics consultation, the clinical pharmacology scientists ranked the impact on the regulatory decision(s). Of about a total of 244 NDAs, 42 included a pharmacometrics component. Review of NDAs involved independent, quantitative evaluation by FDA pharmacometricians, even when such analysis was not conducted by the sponsor. Pharmacometric analyses were pivotal in regulatory decision making in more than half of the 42 NDAs. Of the 14 reviews that were pivotal to approval related decisions, 5 identified the need for additional trials, whereas 6 reduced the burden of conducting additional trials. Collaboration among the FDA clinical pharmacology, medical, and statistical reviewers and effective communication with the sponsors was critical for the impact to occur. The survey and the case studies emphasize the need for early interaction between the FDA and sponsors to plan the development more efficiently by appreciating the regulatory expectations better.

The product label: how pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics reach the prescriber.

The product label, or package insert, is the 'manual' for the safe and effective use of a drug. Important pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of a drug product should appear in the label under specific sections, as required in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), using a format and language recommended by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in various guidances to the industry. The relevant regulations and guidance documents impacting on how this information is conveyed to the healthcare professional are discussed, with special emphasis on how the new proposed rule will impact upon how information is to be conveyed. With the availability of new clinical pharmacology information not available at the time of approval, package inserts for older drugs should be updated to reflect the new data and recommend the proper dosage regimen, enabling prescribers to optimise drug therapy and minimise possible adverse events.