High Tolerability, Favorable Safety, and Subjects' Preference for a Single 200 mg/2 mL Tildrakizumab Injection: A Phase I, Open-Label, Randomized Crossover Trial in Healthy Volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: Tildrakizumab 200 mg/2 mL pre-filled syringe is a new preparation of tildrakizumab that is developed to facilitate patients' compliance. This phase I clinical trial compares the local tolerability, safety, and subjects' preferred method of administration of tildrakizumab when administered as a new single 200 mg/2 mL subcutaneous injection or as two 100 mg/1 mL subcutaneous injections in healthy subjects. METHODS: Visual analogue scores were used to self-assess injection site pain immediately (< 1 min) after each administration and at 1 h and 48 h after each administration. Treatment injection site reactions were assessed at 1 h and 48 h after each administration. Treatment safety was monitored throughout the study period. Subjects' preferred method of administration was assessed 4 weeks after the last administration (day 56). RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in visual analogue scores and injection site reactions was detected between the two treatments. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, and there were no deaths or serious adverse events. Most subjects (61.5%) preferred the treatment when administered as a single 200 mg/2 mL subcutaneous injection rather than as two 100 mg/mL subcutaneous injections. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of 200 mg tildrakizumab as a single 2 mL subcutaneous injection was safe, well tolerated, and preferred over two separate 100 mg/1 mL subcutaneous injections by healthy subjects. Eudract No. 2020-000183-37.

Typical investigational medicinal products follow relatively uniform regulations in 10 European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries.

BACKGROUND: In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe. METHODS: We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries. RESULTS: Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised. CONCLUSION: The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term 'investigational medicinal product' and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term 'typical' investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products.

Compassionate use of interventions: results of a European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) survey of ten European countries.

BACKGROUND: 'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries. METHODS: The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). RESULTS: European Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount. CONCLUSIONS: 'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.