Leading beyond regulatory approval: Opportunities for statisticians to optimize evidence generation and impact clinical practice.

The role and value of statistical contributions in drug development up to the point of health authority approval are well understood. But health authority approval is only a true 'win' if the evidence enables access and adoption into clinical practice. In today's complex and evolving healthcare environment, there is additional strategic evidence generation, communication, and decision support that can benefit from statistical contributions. In this article, we describe the history of medical affairs in the context of drug development, the factors driving post-approval evidence generation needs, and the opportunities for statisticians to optimize evidence generation for stakeholders beyond health authorities in order to ensure that new medicines reach appropriate patients.

A Proposal to Increase Value and Equity in the Development and Distribution of New Pharmaceuticals.

The process of developing and marketing new pharmaceuticals in the United States is driven by a need to maximize returns to shareholders. This results all too often in the production of new medications that are expensive and of marginal value to patients and society. In line with our heightened awareness of the importance of social justice and public health-and in light of our government's alliance with private companies in bringing us COVID-19 vaccines-we need to reconsider how new pharmaceuticals are developed and distributed. Accordingly, we propose the creation of a new agency of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that would direct the whole process. This agency would fund the research and development of high-value medications, closely monitor the clinical studies of these new drugs, and manage their distribution at prices that are value-based, fair, and equitable.

Evaluation of Excipient Risk in BCS Class I and III Biowaivers.

The objective of this review article is to summarize literature data pertinent to potential excipient effects on intestinal drug permeability and transit. Despite the use of excipients in drug products for decades, considerable research efforts have been directed towards evaluating their potential effects on drug bioavailability. Potential excipient concerns stem from drug formulation changes (e.g., scale-up and post-approval changes, development of a new generic product). Regulatory agencies have established in vivo bioequivalence standards and, as a result, may waive the in vivo requirement, known as a biowaiver, for some oral products. Biowaiver acceptance criteria are based on the in vitro characterization of the drug substance and drug product using the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS). Various regulatory guidance documents have been issued regarding BCS-based biowaivers, such that the current FDA guidance is more restrictive than prior guidance, specifically about excipient risk. In particular, sugar alcohols have been identified as potential absorption-modifying excipients. These biowaivers and excipient risks are discussed here. Graphical Abstract.

Reimagining Pharmaceutical Market Exclusivities: Should the Duration of Guaranteed Monopoly Periods Be Value Based?

OBJECTIVES: To describe the main features of a pharmaceutical market in which the duration of guaranteed monopoly periods would correspond to a new pharmaceutical product's value. METHODS: After reviewing patent and regulatory exclusivity-based mechanisms for protecting prescription drug markets from competition to incentivize drug innovation in developed countries, we model market protection mechanisms within the current framework to give the longest-lasting market protections to drug developers that bring the most affordable products to market with highest public health and clinical value. RESULTS: An approach tying pharmaceutical market exclusivity to value would have 3 main features. First, it would be based on regulatory exclusivity (ie, the drug regulator refrains from authorizing generic entry for a certain amount of time), rather than patents. Second, the duration of exclusivity period would be pegged to the magnitude of a product's anticipated health impact and its proposed price by using modified methods from the field of health technology assessment. Third, the duration of the value-based exclusivity period would be reassessed routinely 3 years after the product's launch to account for its real-world effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Linking a drug's proposed price to the duration of its regulatory-based exclusivities would both incentivize the development of high impact, low-cost products and motivate drug developers to introduce these products at lower prices.

Responsible use of negative research outcomes-accelerating the discovery and development of new antibiotics.

Failure to share and make use of existing knowledge, particularly negative research outcomes, has been recognized as one of the key sources of waste and inefficiency in the drug discovery and development process. In the field of antibiotic research, providing a platform where negative outcomes could be shared to prevent the vicious cycle of duplicating costly studies that produce the same negative results would greatly de-risk and accelerate the development of new antibiotics. Providing a legally supported framework that recognizes negative outcomes as intellectual contributions, which can subsequently be translated into a revenue-sharing model, may lead to more openness and value creation in support of a sustainable and responsible transformation of research into socially and economically beneficial innovations.

Women and babies are dying from inertia: a collaborative framework for obstetrical drug development is urgently needed.

Obstetrical complications, often referred to as the "great obstetrical syndromes," are among the most common global causes of mortality and morbidity in young women and their infants. However, treatments for these syndromes are underdeveloped compared with other fields of medicine and are urgently needed. This current paucity of treatments for obstetrical complications is a reflection of the challenges of drug development in pregnancy. The appetite of pharmaceutical companies to invest in research for obstetrical syndromes is generally reduced by concerns for maternal, fetal, and infant safety, poor definition, and high-risk regulatory paths toward product approval. Notably, drug candidates require large investments for development with an unguaranteed return on investment. Furthermore, the discovery of promising drug candidates is hampered by a poor understanding of the pathophysiology of obstetrical syndromes and their uniqueness to human pregnancies. This limits translational extrapolation and de-risking strategies in preclinical studies, as available for other medical areas, compounded with limited fetal safety monitoring to capture early prenatal adverse reactions. In addition, the ethical review committees are reluctant to approve the inclusion of pregnant women in trials, and in the absence of regulatory guidance in obstetrics, clinical development programs are subject to unpredictable regulatory paths. To develop effective and safe drugs for pregnancy complications, substantial commitment, and investment in research for innovative therapies are needed in parallel with the creation of an enabling ethical, legislative, and guidance framework. Solutions are proposed to enable stakeholders to work with a common set of expectations to facilitate progress in this medical discipline. Addressing this significant unmet need to advance maternal and possibly perinatal health requires the involvement of all stakeholders and specifically patients, couples, and clinicians facing pregnancy complications in the dearth of appropriate therapies. This paper focused on the key pharmaceutical research and development challenges to achieve effective and safe treatments for obstetrical syndromes.

A best practice framework for applying physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling to pediatric drug development.

Pediatric physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models have broad application in the drug development process and are being used not only to project doses for clinical trials but increasingly to replace clinical studies. However, the approach has yet to become fully integrated in regulatory submissions. Emerging data support an expanded integration of the PBPK model informed approach in regulatory guidance on pediatrics. Best practice standards are presented for further development through interaction among regulators, industry, and model providers.

Update on ICH E14/S7B Cardiac Safety Regulations: The Expanded Role of Preclinical Assays and the "Double-Negative" Scenario.

For nearly 2 decades, regulators have adopted a harmonized approach to drug development, which has succeeded in bringing new pharmaceuticals to market without significant cardiac liability. Ushered in by technological advancements and better understanding of cellular electrophysiology, the initial paradigm detailed in the 2005 International Conference for Harmonization E14 and S7B documents has undergone evolutionary changes designed to streamline drug development and improve regulatory decision-making and product labeling. The intent of this review is to summarize the new US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Question and Answer update from August 2020 and key messaging from a subsequent FDA webinar describing best practices for preclinical and clinical data integration into a QT risk prediction model.

Navigating the Regulatory Landscape to Develop Pediatric Oncology Drugs: Expert Opinion Recommendations.

Regulatory changes have been enacted in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to encourage the development of new treatments for pediatric cancer. Here, we review some of the factors that have hampered the development of pediatric cancer treatments and provide a comparison of the US and EU regulations implemented to address this clinical need. We then provide some recommendations for each stage of the oncology drug development pathway to help researchers maximize their chance of successful drug development while complying with regulations. A key recommendation is the engagement of key stakeholders such as regulatory authorities, pediatric oncologists, academic researchers, patient advocacy groups, and a Pediatric Expert Group early in the drug development process. During drug target selection, sponsors are encouraged to consult the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the FDA target list, in addition to relevant US and European consortia that have been established to characterize and prioritize oncology drug targets. Sponsors also need to carefully consider the resourcing requirements for preclinical testing, which include ensuring appropriate access to the most relevant databases, clinical samples, and preclinical models (cell lines and animal models). During clinical development, sponsors can account for the pharmacodynamic (PD)/pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations specific to a pediatric population by developing pediatric formulations, selecting suitable PD endpoints, and employing sparse PK sampling or modeling/simulation of drug exposures where appropriate. Additional clinical considerations include the specific design of the clinical trial, the potential inclusion of children in adult trials, and the value of cooperative group trials.

In the last few decades, great progress has been made in developing new treatments for adult cancers. However, development of new treatments for childhood cancers has been much slower. To encourage drug companies (sponsors) to develop effective treatments for childhood cancer, authorities in the United States (US) and Europe have made new rules for drug development. Under these new rules, sponsors developing drugs for specific cancers in adults have to consider whether the target of that drug also causes cancers in children. If this is the case, sponsors have to carry out clinical studies of their drug in children who have cancer that is caused by the same drug target. In this article, we describe some reasons for why drug development for childhood cancers has been slow and the rules created to address this problem in the US and Europe. We share some recommendations to help sponsors maximize their chances of developing an effective drug in children while satisfying the new rules. Specifically, sponsors need to be aware of the differences between studying drugs in adults versus children and how these influence the way the drug is tested. We make several recommendations for each stage of the development process, beginning with what is needed even before human studies begin. Finally, we highlight some issues that sponsors need to think about during drug development, from the preclinical stage (testing drugs in cells and animals) through to clinical testing in adults and pediatric patients with cancer.

Scientific and regulatory evaluation of mechanistic in silico drug and disease models in drug development: Building model credibility.

The value of in silico methods in drug development and evaluation has been demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly. While their benefits are now unanimously recognized, international standards for their evaluation, accepted by all stakeholders involved, are still to be established. In this white paper, we propose a risk-informed evaluation framework for mechanistic model credibility evaluation. To properly frame the proposed verification and validation activities, concepts such as context of use, regulatory impact and risk-based analysis are discussed. To ensure common understanding between all stakeholders, an overview is provided of relevant in silico terminology used throughout this paper. To illustrate the feasibility of the proposed approach, we have applied it to three real case examples in the context of drug development, using a credibility matrix currently being tested as a quick-start tool by regulators. Altogether, this white paper provides a practical approach to model evaluation, applicable in both scientific and regulatory evaluation contexts.

Regulatory density as a means to refine current regulatory approaches for increasingly complex medicines.

The continuous scientific, societal, and technological advancements have shifted drug development toward increasingly complex and ever more targeted treatments. This creates new and unprecedented challenges for global regulatory systems. To address the increased risks and uncertainties of increasingly complex medicine, we advocate for a more tailored and flexible regulatory approach, which is explained here with the concept of 'regulatory density'. In the context of this paper, 'regulatory density' describes the relative amount of obligatory standards, measures and procedures applied to certain medicinal products or product classes and the resources required to meet these requirements. Given that risk and uncertainty are dynamic variables that can change over time, with this paper, we want to stimulate (re)thinking of regulatory approaches for managing the challenges of future complex medicines.

COVID-19: vaccination problems.

This minireview addresses problems of financing the vaccine development, regulatory questions, the ethics and efficacy of vaccine prioritization strategies and the coverage of variant viruses by current vaccines. Serious adverse effects observed with adenovirus vectored vaccines and mRNA vaccines in mass vaccination campaigns are reported. The ethical problems of continuing with placebo controlled vaccine trials and alternative clinical trial protocols are discussed as well as concrete vaccination issues such as the splitting of doses, the delaying of the second dose, the immunization with two different vaccine types and the need of vaccinating seropositive subjects. Strategies to increase vaccine acceptance in the population are shortly mentioned.

Drug development research in pregnant and lactating women.

Pregnant and lactating women are considered "therapeutic orphans" because they generally have been excluded from clinical drug research and the drug development process owing to legal, ethical, and safety concerns. Most medications prescribed for pregnant and lactating women are used "off-label" because most of the clinical approved medications do not have appropriate drug labeling information for pregnant and lactating women. Medications that lack human safety data on use during pregnancy and lactation may pose potential risks for adverse effects in pregnant and lactating women as well as risks of teratogenic effects to their unborn and newborn babies. Federal policy requiring the inclusion of women in clinical research and trials led to considerable changes in research design and practice. Despite more women being included in clinical research and trials, the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in drug research and clinical trials remains limited. A recent revision to the "Common Rule" that removed pregnant women from the classification as a "vulnerable" population may change the culture of drug research and drug development in pregnant and lactating women. This review article provides an overview of medications studied by the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Units Network and Centers and describes the challenges in current obstetrical pharmacology research and alternative strategies for future research in precision therapeutics in pregnant and lactating women. Implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women can provide legislative requirements and opportunities for research focused on pregnant and lactating women.