Rare disease clinical trials in the European Union: navigating regulatory and clinical challenges.

BACKGROUND: Clinical development for orphan drugs presents significant difficulties and challenges. There is no unique or standard design, conduct, and outcome assessment methodology and it is sometimes impractical to fit design models of rare disease trials in any practiced and well-known framework. In the European Union (EU) these challenges encompass a broad array of subjects, including trial design, study outcomes, patient recruitment, trial conduct ethics, trial cost, and chances of success. This literature-based review study aims to provide a thorough overview of the critical aspects of rare disease trials in the EU by analyzing the current landscape of rare disease trials, highlighting key challenges, delving into regulatory and research initiatives and innovation in trial designs, and proposing multi-faceted solutions to implement effective rare disease clinical trials in the region. DISCUSSION: Traditional clinical trial designs, validation, and evaluation methodologies used for nonorphan drugs often prove unsuitable for orphan drugs, given the small patient populations, sometimes fewer than 1000 cases. There is an increasing need for accessible therapies and both regulators as well as industry are trying to develop affordable and effective drugs to address this need. Despite several steps that have been taken, the timely development of drugs remains a challenge. One of the reasons behind the long development timeline is the recruitment, retention, and conduct of rare disease trials. To optimize the development timelines of orphan drugs in the EU, it is important to ensure that the safety and efficacy of the product is not compromised. Industry and regulatory agencies must implement innovative trial designs, devise flexible policies, and incorporate real-world data for assessing clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Collaboration among academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies (both small and major), patient groups, and health authorities is crucial in overcoming obstacles related to clinical trials and providing assistance and creative ideas. The ultimate objective of granting rare disease patients timely and affordable access to medications with a positive balance between benefits and risks is to be met.

Biomarkers in Medicines Development-From Discovery to Regulatory Qualification and Beyond.

Biomarkers are important tools in medicines development and clinical practice. Besides their use in clinical trials, such as for enrichment of patients, monitoring safety or response to treatment, biomarkers are a cornerstone of precision medicine. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) emphasised the importance of the discovery, qualification, and use of biomarkers in their Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025, which included the recommendation to enhance early engagement with biomarker developers to facilitate regulatory qualification. This study explores the journey of biomarkers through the EU regulatory system and beyond, based on a review of interactions between developers and the EMA from 2008 to 2020, as well as the use of qualified biomarkers in clinical trials. Of applicants that used early interaction platforms such as the Innovation Task Force, less than half engaged in fee-related follow-up procedures. Results showed that, as compared to companies, consortia were more likely to opt for the Qualification of Novel Methodologies procedure and engage in follow-up procedures. Our results highlight the importance of early engagement with regulators for achieving biomarker qualification, including pre-submission discussions in the context of the qualification procedure. A review of clinical trials showed that all qualified biomarkers are used in practice, although not always according to the endorsed context of use. Overall, this study highlights important aspects of biomarker qualification, including opportunities to improve the seamless support for developers by EMA. The use of qualified biomarkers in clinical trials underlines the importance of regulatory qualification, which will further enable precision medicine for the benefit of patients.

Qualification of translational safety biomarkers.

Safety biomarkers are important drug development tools, both preclinically and clinically. It is a straightforward process to correlate the performance of nonclinical safety biomarkers with histopathology, and ideally, the biomarker is useful in all species commonly used in safety assessment. In clinical validation studies, where histopathology is not feasible, safety biomarkers are compared to the response of standard biomarkers and/or to clinical adjudication. Worldwide, regulatory agencies have put in place processes to qualify biomarkers to provide confidence in the manner of use and interpretation of biomarker data in drug development studies. This paper describes currently qualified safety biomarkers which can be utilized to monitor for nephrotoxicity and cardiotoxicity and ongoing projects to qualify safety biomarkers for liver, skeletal muscle, and vascular injury. In many cases, the development and use of these critical drug development tools is dependent upon partnerships and the precompetitive sharing of data to support qualification efforts.

Communicating with participants during the conduct of multi-center clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Communicating with trial participants is an important aspect of study conduct, relevant for informed consent and respect for participants. Group teleconferences are one means to convey information to trial participants. We used group teleconferences during an ongoing large-scale clinical trial to communicate important trial updates. METHODS: The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Exploratory Trials in Parkinson's Disease Longitudinal Study-1 trial studied creatine for treatment of early-stage Parkinson's disease. A total of 1741 participants enrolled at 45 sites in the United States and Canada to take part in a double-blind randomized trial of 5 years of treatment with creatine versus placebo. The study leadership held two teleconferences with study participants and their caregivers after each of two pre-specified interim analyses, for a total of four teleconferences. Each agenda included a presentation by study leadership followed by an open question and answer period. Teleconference recordings were made available to all site personnel and trial participants. Recordings were reviewed and abstracted for themes and topics of the presentations, participant questions, and discussion. Number of participants, connection time for each participant, number of questions, and caller connection time were summarized using descriptive statistics. After the first teleconferences, participants who remained on the call until the end were invited to complete a voluntary, four-question survey about the teleconference process. During the second teleconferences, participants were notified of premature study closure. RESULTS: There were 258 callers for the first pair of teleconferences and 604 callers for the second pair of teleconferences. Study leaders answered more than 110 questions from study participants and caregivers across all calls. The most frequently asked question themes related to study drug, Parkinson's disease, side effects, future research, and data analysis. The initial teleconferences were well received by participants. Based on responses to the post-call survey, 98% (118/121) of participants found the call useful, 91% (115/127) were interested in future similar calls, 88% stated the call made them more likely to continue in the study (112/128), and 85% (90/106) were satisfied overall with study communications. CONCLUSION: Teleconferences provide a convenient way to communicate with trial participants and can be used during the conduct of clinical trials to convey study progress and other information. For multi-site trials, teleconferences enable participants to engage directly with study leadership and to ask questions. Survey respondents were highly satisfied with the group teleconference experience. Future research is needed to determine whether teleconferences improve participants' satisfaction with clinical trial participation and improve retention.