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.

Tozinameran (BNT162b2) Vaccine: The Journey from Preclinical Research to Clinical Trials and Authorization.

Vaccination development and production was an essential question for the prevention and global control of COVID-19. The strong support from governing authorities such as Operation Warp Speed and robust funding has led to the development and authorization of the tozinameran (BNT162b2) vaccine. The BNT162b2 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA that encodes for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the main site for neutralizing antibodies. Once it binds with the host cells, the lipid nanoparticles enable the transfer of the RNA, causing S antigens' expression of the SARS-CoV-2, conferring immunity. The vaccine is administered as a 2-dose regime 21 days apart for individuals 16 years and older. Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 vaccine was the first candidate to receive FDA-Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on December 11, 2020. During phase 2/3 clinical trials, 95% efficacy was reported among 37,706 participants over the age of 16 who received the BNT162b2 vaccination; additionally, 52% efficacy was noted 12 days following the administration of the first dose of BNT162b2, reflecting early protection of COVID-19. The BNT162b2 vaccine has exhibited 100% efficacy in clinical trials of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15. Clinical trials in pregnant women and children under the age of 12 are expected to also exhibit promising results. This review article encompasses tozinameran (BNT162b2) vaccine journey, summarizing the BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 vaccines from preclinical studies, clinical trial phases, dosages, immune response, adverse effects, and FDA-EUA.

Benchmarking biopharmaceutical process development and manufacturing cost contributions to R&D.

This study aims to benchmark and analyze the process development and manufacturing costs across the biopharmaceutical drug development cycle and their contribution to overall research and development (R&D) costs. This was achieved with a biopharmaceutical drug development lifecycle cost model that captured the costs, durations, risks and interdependencies of the clinical, process development and manufacturing activities. The budgets needed for process development and manufacturing at each phase of development to ensure a market success each year were estimated. The impact of different clinical success rate profiles on the process development and manufacturing costs at each stage was investigated, with a particular focus on monoclonal antibodies. To ensure a market success each year with an overall clinical success rate (Phase I to approval) of ~12%, the model predicted that a biopharmaceutical company needs to allocate process development and manufacturing budgets in the order of ~$60 M for pre-clinical to Phase II material preparation and ~$70 M for Phase III to regulatory review material preparation. For lower overall clinical success rates of ~4%, which are more indicative of diseases such as Alzheimer's, these values increase to ~$190 M for early-phase and ~$140 Mfor late-phase material preparation; hence, the costs increase 2.5 fold. The costs for process development and manufacturing per market success were predicted to represent 13-17% of the R&D budget from pre-clinical trials to approval. The results of this quantitative structured cost study can be used to aid decision-making during portfolio management and budget planning procedures in biopharmaceutical development.

The Standard for the Exchange of Nonclinical Data (SEND): Challenges and Promises.

The Standard for the Exchange of Nonclinical Data (SEND) is an implementation of the Study Data Tabulation Model for nonclinical studies that enables the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to modernize and streamline the review process. As a result, patients may benefit from speedier approval of new drugs. However, SEND implementation and compliance can be challenging and require effective cooperation between pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations. In order to improve Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) members' awareness about SEND, including the steps, obstacles, and mistakes to avoid in its implementation while applying for FDA approval, the Career Development and Outreach Committee of the STP sponsored a career development lunchtime series panel discussion entitled "The Standard for the Exchange of Nonclinical Data (SEND): Challenges and Promise" in conjunction with the STP 37th Annual Symposium. The presentations and discussion at this workshop provided perspectives of experts including pathologists and information technology professionals familiar with the SEND submission process and FDA reviewers. This article is designed to provide brief summaries of their talks as well as the questions asked during this well-received panel discussion.

Ebola: Lessons on Vaccine Development.

The West African Ebola virus (EBOV) epidemic has fast-tracked countermeasures for this rare, emerging zoonotic pathogen. Until 2013-2014, most EBOV vaccine candidates were stalled between the preclinical and clinical milestones on the path to licensure, because of funding problems, lack of interest from pharmaceutical companies, and competing priorities in public health. The unprecedented and devastating epidemic propelled vaccine candidates toward clinical trials that were initiated near the end of the active response to the outbreak. Those trials did not have a major impact on the epidemic but provided invaluable data on vaccine safety, immunogenicity, and, to a limited degree, even efficacy in humans. There are plenty of lessons to learn from these trials, some of which are addressed in this review. Better preparation is essential to executing an effective response to EBOV in the future; yet, the first indications of waning interest are already noticeable.

First granted example of novel FDA trial design under Expedited Access Pathway for premarket approval: BeAT-HF.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initiated the Expedited Access Pathway (EAP) to accelerate approval of novel therapies targeting unmet needs for life-threatening conditions. EAP allows for the possibility of initial FDA approval using intermediate end points with postapproval demonstration of improved outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Describe the EAP process using the BeAT-HF trial as a case study. METHODS: BeAT-HF will examine the safety and effectiveness of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction using an Expedited and Extended Phase design. In the Expedited Phase, BAT plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) will be compared at 6 months postimplant to GDMT alone using 3 intermediate end points: 6-minute hall walk distance, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. The rate of heart failure morbidity and cardiovascular mortality will be compared between the arms to evaluate early trending using predictive probability modeling. Sample size of 264 patients randomized 1:1 to BAT + GDMT versus GDMT alone provides 81% power for the Expedited Phase intermediate end points. For the Extended Phase, the heart failure morbidity and cardiovascular mortality end point is based on an expected event rate of 0.4 events/patient/year in the GDMT arm. With an adaptive sample size selection design for robustness to inaccurate assumptions, a sample size of 480-960 randomized patients followed ≥2 years allows detecting a 30% reduction in the primary end point with a power of 97.5%. CONCLUSION: Through a unique collaboration with FDA under the EAP, the BeAT-HF trial design allows for the possibility of approval of BAT, initially for symptom relief and subsequently for outcomes improvement.

Bioequivalence of topical generic products. Part 1: Where are we now?

Regulatory accepted methods for bioequivalence assessment of topical generic products generally involve long and expensive clinical endpoint studies. The only alternative relies on pharmacodynamic trials, solely applicable to corticosteroids. Considerable efforts have been channeled towards the development and validation of other analytical surrogates. The majority of these alternative methods rely on in vitro methodologies that allow a more sensitive and reproducible bioequivalence assessment, avoiding at the same time the financial burden that deeply characterizes clinical trials. The development and validation of these methods represent interesting areas of opportunities for generic drugs, since by enabling faster submission and approval processes, an enlargement of topical drug products with generic version is more easily attainable. This review aims to present a critical discussion of the most promising alternative methods, with particular emphasis on in vitro permeation studies and near infrared spectroscopy studies. Since the last technique is not broadly forecast as a bioequivalence assessment tool, its suitability is assessed by a careful analysis of patents that claim the use of NIR radiation in the skin. In fact, the extensive coverage of the devices that use this technology highlights its applicability towards a better understanding of the mechanism underlying topical drug delivery.

[Temporary approval for intranasal naloxone: Setting up in a French addiction center]. / Pratique de l'ATU de cohorte de la naloxone intranasale (Nalscue®) : mise en place dans un CSAPA parisien.

Intranasal naloxone aims at preventing opioid overdose related deaths in active drug users. In France, it has been available since July 2016 through a temporary approval which requires a hospital-based pharmacy and a nominative registration of each patient. We present the characteristics of the first patients who could receive this prescription in our hospital-based addiction center and how they used naloxone during follow-up. Results favor a larger dispensing of naloxone. Patients' as well as peers' and families' education is needed.

Frequency and level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines beyond approvals of the US Food and Drug Administration: retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the differences between recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN) guidelines and Food and Drug Administration approvals of anticancer drugs, and the evidence cited by the NCCN to justify recommendations where differences exist. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: National Comprehensive Cancer Network and FDA. PARTICIPANTS: 47 new molecular entities approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of all FDA approved indications (new and supplemental) with all NCCN recommendations as of 25 March 2016. When the NCCN made recommendations beyond the FDA's approvals, the recommendation was classified and the cited evidence noted. RESULTS: 47 drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015 for adult hematologic or solid cancers were examined. These 47 drugs were authorized for 69 FDA approved indications, whereas the NCCN recommended these drugs for 113 indications, of which 69 (62%) overlapped with the 69 FDA approved indications and 44 (39%) were additional recommendations. The average number of recommendations beyond the FDA approved indications was 0.92. 23% (n=10) of the additional recommendations were based on evidence from randomized controlled trials, and 16% (n=7) were based on evidence from phase III studies. During 21 months of follow-up, the FDA granted approval to 14% (n=6) of the additional recommendations. CONCLUSION: The NCCN frequently recommends beyond the FDA approved indications even for newer, branded drugs. The strength of the evidence cited by the NCCN supporting such recommendations is weak. Our findings raise concern that the NCCN justifies the coverage of costly, toxic cancer drugs based on weak evidence.

Japan-Specific Key Regulatory Aspects for Development of New Biopharmaceutical Drug Products.

Japan represents the third largest pharmaceutical market in the world. Developing a new biopharmaceutical drug product for the Japanese market is a top business priority for global pharmaceutical companies while aligning with ethical drivers to treat more patients in need. Understanding Japan-specific key regulatory requirements is essential to achieve successful approvals. Understanding the full context of Japan-specific regulatory requirements/expectations is challenging to global pharmaceutical companies due to differences in language and culture. This article summarizes key Japan-specific regulatory aspects/requirements/expectations applicable to new drug development, approval, and postapproval phases. Formulation excipients should meet Japan compendial requirements with respect to the type of excipient, excipient grade, and excipient concentration. Preclinical safety assessments needed to support clinical phases I, II, and III development are summarized. Japanese regulatory authorities have taken appropriate steps to consider foreign clinical data, thereby enabling accelerated drug development and approval in Japan. Other important topics summarized in this article include: Japan new drug application-specific bracketing strategies for critical and noncritical aspects of the manufacturing process, regulatory requirements related to stability studies, release specifications and testing methods, standard processes involved in pre and postapproval inspections, management of postapproval changes, and Japan regulatory authority's consultation services available to global pharmaceutical companies.

Solithromycin: A novel ketolide antibiotic.

PURPOSE: The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antimicrobial activity, clinical safety, and current regulatory status of solithromycin are reviewed. SUMMARY: Solithromycin is a novel ketolide antibiotic developed for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Its pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties provide activity against a broad range of intracellular organisms, including retained activity against pathogens displaying various mechanisms of macrolide resistance. Phase III clinical trials of solithromycin demonstrated noninferiority of both oral and i.v.-to-oral regimens of 5-7 days' duration compared with moxifloxacin for patients with moderately severe CABP. Nearly one third of patients receiving i.v. solithromycin experienced infusion-site reactions. Although no liver-related adverse events were reported in patients receiving oral solithromycin, more patients receiving i.v.-to-oral solithromycin experienced asymptomatic, transient transaminitis, with alanine transaminase levels of >3 to >5 times the upper limit, compared with those treated with moxifloxacin. These results led the Food and Drug Administration to conclude that the solithromycin new drug application was not approvable as filed, adding that the risk of hepatotoxicity had not yet been adequately characterized. The agency further recommended a comparative study of patients with CABP to include approximately 9,000 patients exposed to solithromycin in order to exclude drug-induced liver injury events occurring at a rate of 1 in 3,000 with 95% probability. CONCLUSION: Solithromycin is a novel ketolide antibiotic with activity against a broad spectrum of intracellular organisms, including those displaying macrolide resistance. While demonstrating noninferiority to a current first-line agent in the treatment of CABP, concerns for drug-induced liver injury and infusion-site reactions have placed its regulatory future in doubt.

The worldwide trend of using botanical drugs and strategies for developing global drugs.

Natural product drugs, or botanical drugs, are drugs composed of natural substances which have constituents with healthenhancing or medicinal activities. In Korea, government-led projects brought attention to botanical drugs invigorating domestic botanical drug industry. Foreign markets, as well, are growing bigger as the significance of botanical drugs stood out. To follow along with the tendency, Korea puts a lot of effort on developing botanical drugs suitable for global market. However, standards for approving drug sales vary by countries. And also, thorough standardization, certification, clinical studies and data of these will be required as well as data confirming safety and effectiveness. Meanwhile, as an international exchange in botanical drug market continues, the importance of plant resources was emphasized. Thus countries' ownership of domestic natural resources became vital. Not only establishing a systematic method to secure domestic plant resources, but also cooperation with other countries on sharing natural resources is essential to procure natural resources effectively. Korea started to show visible results with botanical drugs, and asthma/COPD treatment made out of speedwell is one example. Sufficient investment and government's active support for basic infrastructure for global botanical drugs will bring Korea to much higher level of botanical drug development. [BMB Reports 2017; 50(3): 111-116].

[Biosimilars in oncology: a therapeutic alternative to the reference products?] / Biosimilars in der Onkologie: Eine therapeutische Alternative zu Referenzarzneimitteln?

Biosimilar medicinal products (biosimilars) have been available in Europe for 10 years, allowing a wide use particularly in oncology. Biosimilars are being developed and approved by means of scientifically sound principles to assure close similarity with the reference products with regard to quality, efficacy, and safety. The scientific principles for establishing biosimilarity are the same as those for demonstrating comparability after a change in the manufacturing process of an already licensed biological. Nevertheless, many clinicians voiced concerns about biosimilars related to their pharmaceutical quality, efficacy (particularly in extrapolated indications), safety (especially immunogenicity), and interchangeability with the originator product. The availability of biosimilars would strengthen the economic competition on the pharmaceutical market, provide opportunities to improve healthcare access, and contribute to the financial sustainability of European healthcare systems. Biosimilars can be considered therapeutic alternatives to the reference product. To date, no data has been published revealing any disadvantages of the biosimilars' use. This article aims to acquaint clinicians, particularly oncologists and haematologists, with the biosimilar concept as they are going to be confronted with a constantly increasing number of biosimilars due to patent expirations in the near future. Furthermore, it provides information on scientific principles guiding biosimilar development and regulatory requirements. This should minimise unfounded fears and concerns among clinicians. Additionally, we provide information on the interchangeability between originator products and biosimilars to assist clinicians in making evidence-based, appropriate, and cost-effective treatment choices for their patients.

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies: preclinical and clinical development aspects.

Biological drugs and their originated biosimilars are large, highly complex molecules derived from living cells or organisms. Traditional medicines, by contrast, are usually simple molecules of low molecular weight, synthesised by chemical means. The distinct complexities and methods of manufacture create an important difference between biosimilars and conventional generic drugs: while chemical generics can be fully characterised as identical to the originator product, biosimilars cannot. In addition, biological therapies are inherently variable, creating unavoidable differences between even subsequent batches of the same product. An expiring patent does not necessarily mean that the manufacturing process of the originator product becomes available to the biosimilar developers (for instance, the relevant cell line clone and growth medium). Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that biosimilar products are identical to their reference product on a molecular level. This difference has important implications for the regulation and licensing of biosimilars. While conventional generic drugs require only a limited comparison and demonstration of identical chemical structure to the reference product, biosimilars require far more rigorous testing. In general, there must be a thorough comparison of structural and functional characteristics between biosimilar and originator drug. Stepwise nonclinical in vitro and in vivo approaches are recommended to evaluate the similarity of both drugs and any identified micro-heterogeneities must then be assessed for their impact on safety and clinical performance. Subsequently, clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) studies need to be performed in order to demonstrate a similar PK profile, prior to conducting clinical efficacy trials.

Establishing "abuse-deterrence equivalence" for generic abuse-deterrent opioid formulations: A proposed development framework.

Abuse-deterrent formulations are one strategy for mitigating the epidemic of prescription opioid abuse. Regulatory guidance documents describe the requirements for developing abuse-deterrent formulations of novel drugs and formulations; however, they do not address "abuse-deterrence equivalence" for generic formulations. As generics may be produced with different excipients and formulations compared to reference drugs, differences in their properties may impact their abuse-deterrent features. Currently, it is unclear what specific studies are needed to support generic abuse-deterrence claims. This commentary outlines several recommendations on the in vitro and in vivo testing required, including the conditions for conducting a human abuse potential study.

Waiving in vivo studies for monoclonal antibody biosimilar development: National and global challenges.

Biosimilars are biological medicinal products that contain a version of the active substance of an already authorised original biological medicinal product (the innovator or reference product). The first approved biosimilar medicines were small proteins, and more recently biosimilar versions of innovator monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs have entered development as patents on these more complex proteins expire. In September 2013, the first biosimilar mAb, infliximab, was authorised in Europe. In March 2015, the first biosimilar (Zarxio™, filgrastim-sndz, Sandoz) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; however, to date no mAb biosimilars have been approved in the US. There are currently major differences between how biosimilars are regulated in different parts of the world, leading to substantial variability in the amount of in vivo nonclinical toxicity testing required to support clinical development and marketing of biosimilars. There are approximately 30 national and international guidelines on biosimilar development and this number is growing. The European Union's guidance describes an approach that enables biosimilars to enter clinical trials based on robust in vitro data alone; in contrast, the World Health Organization's guidance is interpreted globally to mean in vivo toxicity studies are mandatory. We reviewed our own experience working in the global regulatory environment, surveyed current practice, determined drivers for nonclinical in vivo studies with biosimilar mAbs and shared data on practice and study design for 25 marketed and as yet unmarketed biosimilar mAbs that have been in development in the past 5y. These data showed a variety of nonclinical in vivo approaches, and also demonstrated the practical challenges faced in obtaining regulatory approval for clinical trials based on in vitro data alone. The majority of reasons for carrying out nonclinical in vivo studies were not based on scientific rationale, and therefore the authors have made recommendations for a data-driven approach to the toxicological assessment of mAb biosimilars that minimises unnecessary use of animals and can be used across all regions of the world.

Pharmacovigilance of herbal medicines.

The importance of herbal remedies in pharmacovigilance systems is becoming one of the primary tasks, due to the constantly ascending potential of herbal products and herbal medicines worldwide. Nowadays, the drug development is focused on finding new active compounds or combinations, but costs are simultaneously growing, which makes herbal medicines an attractive, harmless and cheaper alternative to synthetic drugs.Like all drugs, herbal are not free of risk and many studies suggest for potential adverse reactions and interactions. Available statistics show that some herbal products, used in traditional medication for generations, may possess carcinogenic, hepatotoxic, cardiotoxic and other severe actions. Evaluation of the safety should include at least in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays, long-term rodent carcinogenicity tests (for drugs intended to be continuously used for >3 months or intermittently for >6 months), reproductive and developmental toxicity studies in some cases and examination of the effects on drug-metabolizing enzymes. Drug safety of herbal medicines should be developed, focusing on specific groups of patients.