Paediatric extrapolation: A necessary paradigm shift.

Legislative initiatives have been successful in increasing the availability of approved therapies for paediatric patients. However, additional measures to ensure the timely completion of paediatric studies are necessary to further increase the number of medicines available to children. Over the last 3 years, international experts convened to revise the ICH E11 guideline on clinical investigations of medicinal products in paediatric populations to harmonize approaches to paediatric extrapolation, striving to reduce substantial differences between regions in the acceptance of data for global paediatric medicine development programmes. Several areas of therapeutics development in children, such as human immunodeficiency virus and partial-onset seizures, have been streamlined and require fewer children enrolled in clinical trials because of the appropriate application of paediatric extrapolation. Based on this experience, it is clear that for paediatric extrapolation strategies to reach their full potential there is the need to understand the quality and quantity of data, often collected in adult patients, that will inform the appropriateness of the use of paediatric extrapolation, as well as to identify gaps in knowledge with respect to disease pathophysiology, organ maturation or drug target ontogeny. The generation of information that enhances our current understanding of these gaps in knowledge can further decrease the need for larger, paediatric clinical trials and can increase the efficiency of paediatric therapeutics development as well as protect children from participation in unnecessary studies. We hope that this publication will increase awareness, input and support from all the stakeholders involved in paediatric therapeutics development.

Optimizing Research to Speed Up Availability of Pediatric Antiretroviral Drugs and Formulations.

Globally 1.8 million children are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), yet only 51% of those eligible actually start treatment. Research and development (R&D) for pediatric antiretrovirals (ARVs) is a lengthy process and lags considerably behind drug development in adults. Providing safe, effective, and well-tolerated drugs for children remains critical to ensuring scale-up globally. We review current approaches to R&D for pediatric ARVs and suggest innovations to enable simplified, faster, and more comprehensive strategies to develop optimal formulations. Several approaches could be adopted, including focusing on a limited number of prioritized formulations and strengthening existing partnerships to ensure that pediatric investigation plans are developed early in the drug development process. Simplified and more efficient mechanisms to undertake R&D need to be put in place, and financing mechanisms must be made more sustainable. Lessons learned from HIV should be shared to support progress in developing pediatric formulations for other diseases, including tuberculosis and viral hepatitis.

Fostering responsible research with genome editing technologies: a European perspective.

In this consensus paper resulting from a meeting that involved representatives from more than 20 European partners, we recommend the foundation of an expert group (European Steering Committee) to assess the potential benefits and draw-backs of genome editing (off-targets, mosaicisms, etc.), and to design risk matrices and scenarios for a responsible use of this promising technology. In addition, this European steering committee will contribute in promoting an open debate on societal aspects prior to a translation into national and international legislation.

Impact of the European paediatric legislation in paediatric rheumatology: past, present and future.

Conducting clinical trials in paediatric rheumatology has been difficult mainly because of the lack of funding for academic studies and the lack of interest by pharmaceutical companies in the small and non-rewarding paediatric market. The situation changed dramatically a few years ago with the introduction of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act in the USA and of specific legislation for the development of paediatric medicines (Paediatric Regulation) in the European Union (EU). The EU Paediatric Regulation had a positive impact in paediatric rheumatology-in particular, on the development of new treatments for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Some problems remain, however, such as greater harmonisation of the regulatory aspects of medicines, how to handle me-too agents, how to conduct adequate pharmacokinetic studies and develop age-appropriate formulations, ethical problems in study review and implementation, and a change in the current JIA classification. The introduction of specific legislation, coupled with the existence of large international networks such as the Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG at http://www.prcsg.org), covering North America, and the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO at http://www.printo.it), covering more than 50 countries, has led to great advances in paediatric rheumatology. Future changes might increase the possibility of conducting trials with similar approaches in other paediatric rheumatological conditions and provide evidence-based treatments for children affected by rheumatic diseases.

Global Cancer Drug Development-A Report From the 2022 Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development and Validation Meeting.

Rapidly expanding systemic treatment options, combined with improved screening, diagnostic, surgical, and radiotherapy techniques, have led to improved survival outcomes for many cancers over time. However, these overall survival gains have disproportionately benefited patients in high-income countries, whereas patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to experience challenges in accessing timely and guideline concordant care. In September 2022, the Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development and Validation workshop was held, focusing on global cancer drug development. Panelists discussed key barriers such as the lack of diagnostic services and human resources, drug accessibility and affordability, lack of research infrastructure, and regulatory and authorization challenges, with a particular focus on Africa and Latin America. Potential opportunities to improve access and affordability were reviewed, such as the importance of prioritizing investments in diagnostics, investing health infrastructure and work force planning, coordinated drug procurement efforts and streamlined regulatory processing, incentivized pricing through regulatory change, and the importance of developing and promoting clinical trials that can answer relevant clinical questions for patients in LMICs. As a cancer community, we must continue to advocate for and work toward equitable access to high-quality interventions for patients, regardless of their geographical location.

Reliance is key to effective access and oversight of medical products in case of public health emergencies.

INTRODUCTION: Responding to new threats and public health emergencies (PHE) creates serious challenges to regulators. The pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 has been the catalyzer for change in global and local regulatory practices. Intensified collaboration, rapid and coordinated actions, and reliance mechanisms were key elements of the regulators' response to COVID-19 for all regulatory functions. AREAS COVERED: This article presents how collaboration and reliance among regulators were crucial tools for the regulatory responses to COVID-19, describes the reliance approaches for authorization of COVID-19 vaccines and other commodities, and the importance of reliance for other regulatory functions to avoid duplication and save resources where possible. This article also presents the results of a follow-up survey of reliance approaches in case of public health emergencies conducted between the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP) members and discusses the forward-looking potential of reliance, analyzing the journey from theoretical concepts to real-life implementation. EXPERT OPINION: Regulatory reliance is an essential tool for regulators to act quickly and collectively in times of public health emergencies. Reliance approaches facilitate regulatory approvals and allow a more efficient use of resources, ultimately serving patients by facilitating earlier access to quality assured, safe and effective medicines.

WHO collaborative registration procedure using stringent regulatory authorities' medicine evaluation: reliance in action?

INTRODUCTION: The regulatory approval of medical products in countries with limited regulatory resources can be lengthy, which often compromises patients' timely access to much-needed medicines. To improve the efficiency of regulatory systems, reliance is being used. Reliance allows an authority to leverage the work performed by other authorities, such as scientific evaluations, to decide on medical products approval within their jurisdiction. This reduces duplication of regulatory efforts, resources and time, while maintaining national sovereignty. AREAS COVERED: This article analyzes the outcomes and stakeholders' experience of using medicines assessments performed by Stringent Regulatory Authorities (SRA) in the Collaborative Registration Procedures (CRP). Since its establishment in 2015, 59 approvals were granted to 16 medicines in 23 countries through SRA CRP. Results show that the procedure is delivering on the intended benefits of access and speed, with long-term positive impact for resource-limited countries. The article concludes with recommendations on the need for guidance on management of post-approval changes, wider promotion of the procedure, and increased collaboration between authorities. EXPERT OPINION: The SRA CRP provides a mechanism for the use of reliance by strengthening communication and promoting the exchange of information among regulators. This fosters faster regulatory approvals and, consequently, earlier access to medicines.

Guidance for clinical trials for children and adolescents with chronic hepatitis C.

Most children with chronic hepatitis C are infected vertically, have a low natural seroconversion rate, and carry a lifetime risk of cirrhosis and cancer. Affected children are usually asymptomatic, and histological findings are mild with a low risk of progression, although 5% develop significant liver disease in childhood.The use of combination treatment with pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin has changed the outcome and prognosis for this disease, with approximately 60% of children achieving sustained viral clearance. Combination therapy is not ideal for children because pegylated interferon is administered subcutaneously, impairs growth velocity, and both interferon and ribavirin have significant adverse effects that affect compliance. In addition, approximately 50% of children infected with genotype 1 do not respond to therapy. Thus, additional treatment options are required including improvement in dosing, reduction in the length of treatment, and evaluation of new drugs, such as protease inhibitors, which could be more effective for patients infected with genotype 1.The primary goal of treatment is to eradicate the infection. The future clinical trial design should ensure that any new drugs demonstrate noninferiority to the present standard regimen in both children and adults. The measure for documenting substantial improvement above present therapy should be increased viral clearance rate or the same clearance rate, with a shorter duration of treatment and/or fewer adverse effects. We do not believe there is any need for a placebo arm because approved therapy is available and new treatments can be compared with present therapy.Safety measures should include the standard recommended laboratory investigations, growth parameters, quality-of-life or psychological measures, and a requirement for long-term follow-up for up to 5 years.

Three years of paediatric regulation in the European Union.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether the Paediatric Regulation has already succeeded in addressing the needs of the paediatric population both quantitatively with respect to paediatric development plans and trials, and qualitatively with respect to the content of the plans. The Paediatric Regulation No 1901/2006 entered into force in Europe on 26 January 2007, with the aim to improve the development of medicinal products, to address the lack of age-appropriate formulations and to provide information on efficacy, safety and dosing for the paediatric population. The Regulation requires applications for marketing authorisations to be accompanied by either a product-specific waiver or a paediatric investigation plan, to be agreed by the Paediatric Committee (PDCO) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the applications for Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIPs) and Waivers submitted to the EMA, from 2007 until end of 2009, was performed. The content of scientific opinions adopted by the Paediatric Committee was compared to the proposals submitted by industry, and the paediatric clinical trials registered in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database were examined. RESULTS: An increasing paediatric medicine development can be expected following the adoption of this legal framework. The highest number of PIPs was in the fields of endocrinology (13.4%), oncology (11%) and infectious (10.8%) and cardiovascular diseases (7.1%), but most therapeutic areas now benefit from paediatric development. A large number of PIPs include measures for the development of age-appropriate formulations (23%), and most include studies on dosing, efficacy and safety to cover the respective paediatric subsets, including the mostly neglected neonates (26%). In many proposals (38%), however, the PDCO had to request major modifications to the proposed PIPs to ensure that the results will meet the needs, in particular by requesting better methodology. The proportion of paediatric trials as a percentage of all clinical trials has moderately increased (from 8.2 to 9.4% of all trials), and this may reflect the fact that paediatric trials are generally deferred (82%) until after adult development. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first analysis of the general impact of the Paediatric Regulation on the development of medicinal products in Europe. Three years after the implementation of the Paediatric Regulation, we were able to identify that the PIPs address the main gaps in knowledge on paediatric medicines. The key objective of the Paediatric Regulation, namely, the availability of medicines with age-appropriate information, is going to be achieved. It is clear also that modifications of the initial proposals as requested by the PDCO are necessary to ensure the quality of paediatric developments. The impact on the number of clinical trials performed remains modest at this point in time, and it will be of high interest to monitor this performance indicator, which will also inform us whether paediatric medicine research takes place in Europe or elsewhere.

Pediatric regulatory initiatives.

A series of government actions have evolved since the 1990s to facilitate the development of medicinal products for pediatric use using a combination of incentives and mandates. The initiatives have been successful in stimulating activity and interest in products developed for pediatric use. The initiatives continue to evolve as experience accumulates and regulatory agencies develop robust cooperative programs. A multidimensional program is necessary to achieve the necessary goal of aligning pediatric therapeutics with adult therapeutics and providing children the most favorable opportunity to benefit and minimize risk to vulnerable populations.

Role of modeling and simulation in pediatric investigation plans.

Ethical and practical constraints encourage the optimal use of resources in pediatric drug development. Modeling and simulation has emerged as a promising methodology acknowledged by industry, academia, and regulators. We previously proposed a paradigm in pediatric drug development, whereby modeling and simulation is used as a decision tool, for study optimization and/or as a data analysis tool. Three and a half years since the Paediatric Regulation came into force in 2007, the European Medicines Agency has gained substantial experience in the use of modeling and simulation in pediatric drug development. In this review, we present examples on how the proposed paradigm applies in real case scenarios of planned pharmaceutical developments. We also report the results of a pediatric database search to further 'validate' the paradigm. There were 47 of 210 positive pediatric investigation plan (PIP) opinions that made reference to modeling and simulation (data included all positive opinions issued up to January 2010). This reflects a major shift in regulatory thinking. The ratio of PIPs with modeling and simulation rose to two in five based on the summary reports. Population pharmacokinetic (POP-PK) and pharmacodynamics (POP-PD) and physiologically based pharmacokinetic models are widely used by industry and endorsed or even imposed by regulators as a way to circumvent some difficulties in developing medicinal products in children. The knowledge of the effects of age and size on PK is improving, and models are widely employed to make optimal use of this knowledge but less is known about the effects of size and maturation on PD, disease progression, and safety. Extrapolation of efficacy from different age groups is often used in pediatric medicinal development as another means to alleviate the burden of clinical trials in children, and this can be aided by modeling and simulation to supplement clinical data. The regulatory assessment is finally judged on clinical grounds such as feasibility, ethical issues, prioritization of studies, and unmet medical need. The regulators are eager to expand the use of modeling and simulation to elucidate safety issues, to evaluate the effects of disease (e.g., renal or hepatic dysfunction), and to qualify mechanistic models that could help shift the current medicinal development paradigm.

Reliance: a smarter way of regulating medical products - The IPRP survey.

Introduction: A survey was conducted among national regulatory authorities' members of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP) to collect and share experiences of reliance approaches. Reliance allows formally, or informally, one regulatory authority to use assessments made by other regulatory authorities while remaining responsible for the final decision. Reliance is an essential concept to increase the efficiency of the global regulatory oversight of medical products by national regulatory authorities.Areas covered: This article describes the findings and recommendations from the IPRP survey. It shows that reliance in the area of medical product oversight is broadly accepted. The first part presents the acceptance and reasons for accepting reliance including the need for trust, then gives examples of the most common areas for reliance, and explains the difference between unilateral or reciprocal reliance. Finally, the article analyzes the lessons learned including challenges and opportunities for reliance on regulatory authorities to facilitate patient access in their jurisdictions.Expert opinion: Regulatory reliance facilitates regulatory approvals and allows to use resources in a more efficient way and ultimately serves patients by facilitating earlier access to quality-assured, safe, and effective medicines.

Assuring Access to Safe Medicines in Pregnancy and Breastfeeding.

Scientists and regulators in Europe and the United States continue to seek methods and strategies to improve knowledge on rational use of medicines for pregnant and breastfeeding populations, an important subset of women's health. Regulatory agencies have made strides toward improvement, but much more is needed. Recognizing the importance of international collaboration, we have begun to consider how to address these important public health issues more globally. The health of the child begins with the health of the mother.

Paediatric investigation plans for pain: painfully slow!

PURPOSE: To examine the early impact of the Paediatric Regulation, which entered into force in Europe on 27 January 2007, on the development of pharmaceutical drugs in the therapeutic field of pain submitted to the Paediatric Committee (PDCO) and to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). METHODS: Paediatric Investigations Plans (PIPs) submitted with a Decision (outcome) reached between September 2007 and March 2010 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 17 Paediatric Investigation Plans submitted, 14 have resulted in an EMA Decision, 3 were withdrawn by the applicants, 8 were granted a full waiver from development, and 1 resulted in a negative opinion. Decisions as issued included 15 clinical trials, with at least 1,282 children to be recruited into studies across five different products. Neonates were included in four of the products. CONCLUSIONS: The small number of submissions indicates a lack of new drugs being developed for the management of pain. Ethical concerns that too many vulnerable children will be recruited into clinical trials must be balanced against limiting the number of off-label prescribing and obtaining age-appropriate information on paediatric use. Now is an opportune time for clinicians, academics, learned societies and industry to collaborate for the benefit of children in pain.

Juvenile animal studies for the development of paediatric medicines: a description and conclusions from a European Medicines Agency workshop on juvenile animal testing for nonclinical assessors.

A workshop organised by the European Medicines Agency involved assessors and experts present in a Nonclinical Working Group evaluating juvenile animal studies for Paediatric Investigation Plans in collaboration with the Paediatric Committee and the Safety Working Party of the Committee for Human Medicinal Products. The objective of the workshop was to analyse which juvenile animal studies proposals were received and agreed by the Paediatric Committee, to check consistency and how to apply the existing European guideline on juvenile animal studies. A comparison of main organ system development in man vs. animal species was presented to guide the review and to support species selection and protocol design. An analysis of juvenile animal studies included in finalised PIP's was also presented. Out of 109 paediatric investigation plans finalised between November 2008 and March 2009, 43 included one or more juvenile animal studies. In most cases the preferred species was the rat; one species only was requested to be studied (20/22), but in a minority two species were required (2/22). When deciding on the characteristics of the juvenile animal studies, such as age of animals at study start, the age of the children targeted by the medicine was considered. It is expected that the increasing experience gained by Applicants and Regulators will allow further refining the criteria for these juvenile animal studies. Further research on this topic is highly encouraged in the European Regulatory framework.

Are the European Medicines Agency, US Food and Drug Administration, and Other International Regulators Talking to Each Other?

There is talk of regulatory collaboration worldwide to protect public health and allow patients timely access to medicines. Here, we present the reality of the collaboration between the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This takes the form of near daily interactions, which may be less known outside of regulatory agencies. We present a review of what we call clusters, which involve the EMA, the FDA, and many other agencies under the umbrella of confidentiality arrangements. Through a survey of participants, we identified about 30 clusters of variable composition; these allow for the exchange of information and discussion among experts of applying regulatory science to common challenges in global drug development at every phase of its lifecycle and facilitate global medicines development.

The European Medicines Agency facilitates access to medicines in low- and middle-income countries.

Introduction: As part of its contribution to promoting global health, the European Medicines Agency can assess medicines for use outside the European Union (EU) and issue scientific opinions in collaboration with the World Health Organization and non-EU national regulatory authorities. Ten positive scientific opinions have been adopted by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency medicines (EU-M4all, or article 58). We have investigated for the first time their impact.Method: We included all positive scientific opinions (n = 10), contacted the sponsors (n = 8) and obtained and analyzed the lists of approval granted based on these opinions.Findings: 138 regulatory approvals have been granted in 90 countries, with 75 approvals in Africa, and the remainder in Latin and South America, Middle East and South-East Asia, and non-EU Europe and Central Asia.Discussion: These scientific opinions reflect the conditions of use and rely on high standards, but the final approval decision remains with these countries. Despite the small number of EU-M4all opinions, the many approvals have had an impact and contribute to access to innovation for patients with unmet needs in target countries.

The European paediatric initiative: 1 year of experience.

The European Regulation on medicines for pediatric use entered into force on 26 January 2007. It changes dramatically the way medicines are developed for children. This regulation will increase availability of and information on pediatric medicines through high quality, ethical research.

What to Know About Medicines With New Active Ingredients Approved in FY 2016 / 2016 in Japan and EU: A Brief Comparison of New Medicines Approved in Japan and the EU in 2016.

The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) in Japan and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have a long-standing experience of reviews of new medicines, and they meet their target pre-market review periods. In FY 2016 / 2016, 112 and 83 new medicines were approved in Japan and EU, respectively. Out of these medicines, 41 and 27 medicines containing new active ingredients were approved with total pre-market review periods of 209 days and 428 days in Japan and EU, respectively. Approximately one-third of these medicines were reviewed by the Agencies in close timing, within 1 year between pre-market review applications in Japan and in EU. Taking into account the increasing number of global clinical trials and constant number of consultations or scientific advice related to global clinical trials in Japan, it is clear that the importance of the continuous, collaborative relationship between EMA and PMDA is more and more crucial, as it does facilitate close and timely exchange of information and opinions on products and technologies under development. There already are effective collaborative frameworks between PMDA and EMA in addition to daily communication, and our findings support the development and best use of regulatory tools such as consultation services and scientific advice/protocol assistance for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry but mostly of patients.

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: from scientific advice to marketing authorisation to the European Medicine Agency.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, experience on the application of adaptive designs in confirmatory clinical trials has accumulated. Although planning such trials comes at the cost of additional operational complexity, adaptive designs offer the benefit of flexibility to update trial design and objectives as data accrue. In 2007, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) provided guidance on confirmatory clinical trials with adaptive (or flexible) designs. In order to better understand how adaptive trials are implemented in practice and how they may impact medicine approval within the EMA centralised procedure, we followed on 59 medicines for which an adaptive clinical trial had been submitted to the EMA Scientific Advice (SA) and analysed previously in a dedicated EMA survey of scientific advice letters. We scrutinized in particular the submission of the corresponding medicines for a marketing authorisation application (MAA). We also discuss the current regulatory perspective as regards the implementation of adaptive designs in confirmatory clinical trials. METHODS: Using the internal EMA MAA database, the AdisInsight database and related trial registries, we analysed how many of these 59 trials actually started, the completion status, results, the time to trial start, the adaptive elements finally implemented after SA, their possible influence on the success of the trial and corresponding product approval. RESULTS: Overall 31 trials out of 59 (53%) were retrieved. Thirty of them (97%) have been started and 23 (74%) concluded. Nine of these trials (39% out of 23) demonstrated a significant treatment effect on their primary endpoint and 4 (17% out of 23) supported a marketing authorisation (MA). An additional two trials were stopped using pre-defined criteria for futility, efficiently identifying trials on which further resources should not be spent. Median time to trial start after SA letter was given by EMA was 5 months. In the investigated trial registries, at least 18 trial (58% of 31 retrieved trials) designs were implemented with adaptive elements, which were predominantly dose selection, sample size reassessment (SSR) and stopping for futility (SFF). Among the 11 completed trials including adaptive elements, 6 demonstrated a significant treatment effect on their primary endpoint (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive designs are now well established in the drug development landscape. If properly pre-planned, adaptations can play a key role in the success of some of these trials, for example to help successfully select the most promising dose regimens for phase II/III trials. Interim analyses can also enable stopping of trials for futility when they do not hold their promises. Type I error rate control, trial integrity and results consistency between the different stages of the analyses are fundamental aspects to be discussed thoroughly. Engaging early dialogue with regulators and implementing the scientific advice received is strongly recommended, since much experience in discussing adaptive designs and assessing their results has been accumulated.