A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. RESULTS: On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. CONCLUSION: The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Adaptive Platform Trials to Transform Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Therapy Development.

Current therapeutic development in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) relies on individual randomized clinical trials to test a specific investigational product in a single patient population. This approach has intrinsic limitations, including cost, time, and lack of flexibility. Adaptive platform trials represent a novel approach to investigate several interventions for a single disease in a continuous manner. Already in use in oncology, this approach is now being employed more often in neurology. Here, we describe a newly launched platform trial for ALS. The Healey ALS Platform Trial is testing multiple investigational products concurrently in people with ALS, with the goal of rapidly identifying novel treatments, biomarkers, and trial endpoints. ANN NEUROL 2022;91:165-175.

[First experiences with the implementation of EU Regulation 536/2014 (CTR) from the perspective of non-commercial academic research]. / Erste Erfahrungen bei der Umsetzung der EU-Verordnung 536/2014 (CTR) aus Sicht der nichtkommerziellen akademischen Forschung.

With the implementation of the new EU Regulation 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation - CTR) on 31 January 2022, the approval and conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use are to be harmonized within the European Union (EU). Approval is granted via the electronic Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) portal of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In addition to commercial sponsors, sponsors at academic institutions are also affected by the implementation of the CTR in the context of investigator-initiated clinical trials (IITs). Numerous changes in the process map for regulated drug trials are necessary.New aspects concern the general user structure and the role and permission concept of CTIS. Requirements that previously applied only to investigational medicinal products/placebo now also apply to auxiliary medicinal products. Investigational and auxiliary medicinal products not yet approved in the EU must be registered in the XEVMPD drug database. Other significant changes include the reporting of "serious breaches," the publication of relevant study documents, the introduction of a "summary in layman's terms," the archiving period of 25 years, the implementation of "low intervention clinical trials," and the possibility of co-sponsorship.First experience with the application process shows that the new system needs to be further improved. This concerns, for example, the EU-wide harmonization of requirements and the elimination of technical deficiencies. In the medium and long term, however, simplifications with regard to regulatory processes should be noticeable. What is needed here are intensified agreements with national higher authorities and ethics committees, effective knowledge management, and improved communication.

[Clinical trials with investigational medicinal products-initial experiences with the new EU clinical trial regulation 536/2014 and challenges and opportunities for contract research organisations]. / Klinische Prüfung von Arzneimitteln ­ erste Erfahrungen mit der neuen EU-Verordnung 536/2014, Herausforderungen und Chancen für Auftragsforschungsinstitute.

The new authorisation procedure for clinical trials on medicinal products according to Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trial Regulation - CTR) became applicable in the European Union and the European Economic Area on 31 January 2022. All involved parties communicate digitally via a specially programmed IT system, the Clinical Trial Information System (CTIS), provided by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This article highlights the cooperation between sponsors and Contract Research Organisations (CROs) when applying the CTR and CTIS.First experiences and observed trends are described focusing on user administration in CTIS and on activities related to the protection of personal data and commercially confidential information (CCI) when clinical trials are published. Challenges for CROs are multifaceted and are discussed from different angles. For example, it is necessary for CROs to temporarily maintain a Quality Management System that serves both "systems": clinical trials under the EU-Directive 2001/20 as well as under the CTR. CTR and CTIS offer not only new tasks for CROs; they often become advisors for sponsors on the basis of their extensive experience, for example, regarding the cooperation model between sponsors and CROs and/or the strategic model for submission of a clinical trial. The article concludes with a look into possible future sponsor outsourcing strategies.

[Evaluation of clinical trials on medicinal products by ethics committees: changes due to the new EU Regulation 536/2014 (CTR) and necessary harmonization measures]. / Bewertung klinischer Arzneimittelprüfungen durch Ethikkommissionen: Änderungen durch die neue EU-Verordnung 536/2014 (CTR) und nötige Harmonisierungsmaßnahmen.

After Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 (Clinical Trial Regulation, CTR) of the European Parliament and of the Council took effect on 31 January 2022, the application process for clinical trials fundamentally changed. This article describes the fundamental procedural changes and the resulting changes for Germany and, in particular, for the ethics committees. The harmonization efforts of the ethics committees at the EU level are discussed.According to the new EU regulation, only one ethics committee is involved in the approval of a clinical trial of medicinal products in Germany. The previous consultation procedure involving several locally competent ethics committees has been replaced. Instead, there is now closer cooperation between the ethics committees and the federal authorities through the preparation of a joint assessment report as well as with the other EU member states as part of the consolidation of the respective country-specific requirements. The regular mutual exchange between the ethics committees that had previously accompanied the consultation procedure helped to harmonize the decision criteria but also the discretionary decisions. Due to the discontinuation of this exchange, more detailed procedural recommendations are required but also other regular exchange possibilities in order to not only maintain but also to advance harmonizations already in place. The Working Group of Medical Ethics Committees (AKEK), as the representative of the individual ethics committees, also maintains an intensive exchange with federal authorities, applicants, other European ethics committees and European institutions.

[The national legislation accompanying the approval procedure for clinical trials of medicinal products for human use under Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014]. / Die nationale Begleitgesetzgebung zum Genehmigungsverfahren klinischer Prüfungen mit Humanarzneimitteln im Rahmen der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 536/2014.

The Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation [CTR]) on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use is a challenge not only for sponsors but also for national authorities and ethics committees. Thus, fundamental structural changes were necessary for the establishment of the novel authorisation procedure. The necessary accompanying law was created in 2016 with the Fourth Law on the Amendment of the Medicinal Products Act (4th AMGÄndG) and in 2017 with the Clinical Trial Assessment Procedure Ordinance (KPBV).The 4th AMGÄndG provided for legal amendments to the Medicinal Products Act (AMG) that came into force in advance of the date of application of the CTR. Essentially, this concerns the introduction of a registration obligation for ethics committees at the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). In addition, the 4th AMGÄndG contains regulations that came into force at the beginning of 2022, in parallel with the date of application of the CTR. The Regulation on the application of Good Clinical Practice in the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products for human use (GCP-Regulation, GCP-V) was repealed. The 6th section of the AMG on the protection of humans in clinical trials has been rewritten to supplement the requirements of the CTR and to fit the procedural flow into the national legal system. In particular, this concerns the regulations on the cooperation between higher federal authorities and ethics committees, such as responsibilities, deadlines, procedures and fees. Regulations were also made for the national procedure of release authorisation for clinical trials with medicinal products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as well as special protective regulations for special groups of participants.

[Main characteristics of the new authorisation procedure for clinical trials with medicinal products according to regulation (EU) no 536/2014 and the cooperation between the member states]. / Grundzüge des neuen Genehmigungsverfahrens für klinische Arzneimittelprüfungen im Rahmen der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 536/2014 und der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten.

With Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, which became applicable on 31 January 2022, full harmonisation of the authorisation and monitoring procedures of clinical trials with medicinal products in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA) has been achieved. In addition to an entirely paperless application procedure, communication between all parties involved is done through the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), which was developed specifically for the Regulation and through which all non-proprietary information and content of the clinical trial application and results are also made available to the public. As was already the case under the old legal framework, the authorisation of a clinical trial is granted by each Member State concerned; however, the assessment of the common part of the dossier of a clinical trial that is conducted in more than one Member State is jointly done by the respective Member States under the coordinating lead of a reporting Member State. The present article outlines the authorisation procedure with its deadline concept and addresses further aspects of the Regulation, such as details on the protection of the trial subjects, safety reporting and transparency rules.

Trends in Investigator-Initiated Clinical Studies at a University Hospital after Enforcement of the 2018 Clinical Trials Act in Japan.

In April 2018, the Clinical Trials Act pertaining to investigator-initiated clinical trials was passed in Japan. The purpose of this study was to investigate activity in investigator-initiated clinical studies before and after enforcement of the new Clinical Trials Act. This was done by analysing the records of the Ethics Committee of Tokushima University Hospital, which reviews studies based on the Japanese government's Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects prior to the Clinical Trials Act, and records of the Certified Review Board established at Tokushima University under the Clinical Trials Act in 2018. The number of new applications to these two review boards during fiscal years 2015-2017 (pre-Act) and fiscal years 2018 and 2019 (post-Act) were used as an indicator of activity in investigator-initiated clinical studies. The number of new applications to the Ethics Committee was 303, 261, 316, 303, and 249 in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. The data show that the total number of new interventional studies decreased from 50.3 in average in 2015-2017 (pre-Act) to 42 in 2018 and 40 in 2019 (post-Act), respectively. These results suggest that fewer interventional studies were started following enforcement of the new Clinical Trials Act. To confirm this trend and identify contributing factors, further studies are required. In addition, possible way, such as broader contribution of clinical research coordinators, to promote clinical studies in the new Clinical Trials Act era should be examined.

Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Failure to report the results of a clinical trial can distort the evidence base for clinical practice, breaches researchers' ethical obligations to participants, and represents an important source of research waste. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007 now requires sponsors of applicable trials to report their results directly onto ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of completion. The first trials covered by the Final Rule of this act became due to report results in January, 2018. In this cohort study, we set out to assess compliance. METHODS: We downloaded data for all registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. All cross-sectional analyses in this manuscript were performed on data extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov on Sept 16, 2019; monthly trends analysis used archived data closest to the 15th day of each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. Our study cohort included all applicable trials due to report results under FDAAA. We excluded all non-applicable trials, those not yet due to report, and those given a certificate allowing for delayed reporting. A trial was considered reported if results had been submitted and were either publicly available, or undergoing quality control review at ClinicalTrials.gov. A trial was considered compliant if these results were submitted within 1 year of the primary completion date, as required by the legislation. We described compliance with the FDAAA 2007 Final Rule, assessed trial characteristics associated with results reporting using logistic regression models, described sponsor-level reporting, examined trends in reporting, and described time-to-report using the Kaplan-Meier method. FINDINGS: 4209 trials were due to report results; 1722 (40·9%; 95% CI 39·4-42·2) did so within the 1-year deadline. 2686 (63·8%; 62·4-65·3) trials had results submitted at any time. Compliance has not improved since July, 2018. Industry sponsors were significantly more likely to be compliant than non-industry, non-US Government sponsors (odds ratio [OR] 3·08 [95% CI 2·52-3·77]), and sponsors running large numbers of trials were significantly more likely to be compliant than smaller sponsors (OR 11·84 [9·36-14·99]). The median delay from primary completion date to submission date was 424 days (95% CI 412-435), 59 days higher than the legal reporting requirement of 1 year. INTERPRETATION: Compliance with the FDAAA 2007 is poor, and not improving. To our knowledge, this is the first study to fully assess compliance with the Final Rule of the FDAAA 2007. Poor compliance is likely to reflect lack of enforcement by regulators. Effective enforcement and action from sponsors is needed; until then, open public audit of compliance for each individual sponsor may help. We will maintain updated compliance data for each individual sponsor and trial at fdaaa.trialstracker.net. FUNDING: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Temporary derogation from European environmental legislation for clinical trials of genetically modified organisms for coronavirus disease 2019.

Attempts to streamline environmental procedures for those products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) among the European Union (EU) Member States are ongoing but still need to be further developed. These procedures can be complex, resource-intensive and time-consuming. Some candidate vaccines currently under development for COVID-19 include genetically modified viruses, which may be considered GMOs. Given the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 outbreak, on July 15, 2020, the European Parliament approved a temporary derogation of the European environmental requirements to facilitate that those clinical trials with GMOs intended to treat or prevent COVID-19 can start as soon as possible in Europe. This measure has been very controversial, since it could entail risks to human health and the environment, and could be seen as unfair for other products targeting unmet medical needs. With the adoption of this measure, the bottlenecks and obstacles for the development of innovative GMO-based medicines in the EU that the environmental legislation entails have become even more evident.

Evolving use of real-world evidence in the regulatory process: a focus on immuno-oncology treatment and outcomes.

In recent years, regulatory bodies have increasingly recognized the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) for supplementing and supporting clinical trial data in new drug applications. Nevertheless, the integration of RWE into established regulatory processes is complex and the generation of 'regulatory-grade' real-world data faces operational, methodological, data-related and policy-related challenges. In parallel with this evolving role for RWE, immuno-oncology therapies have emerged as leading cancer treatments and are expected to continue to play a central role in the future. In this article, we review the current literature on the use of RWE for regulatory submissions, with a focus on novel anticancer immunotherapies, and discuss the utility and current limitations of RWE in the context of drug development and regulatory approvals.

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.

Optimizing the East African Community's Medicines Regulatory Harmonization initiative in 2020-2022: A Roadmap for the Future.

Margareth Ndomondo-Sigonda outlines future challenges for the East African Medicines Regulatory Harmonization initiative.

Regulatory oversight of cell therapy in China: Government's efforts in patient access and therapeutic innovation.

In recent years, remarkable progress has been made in the fundamental research and on clinical development of cell therapy. Although China has launched a series of regulations to establish a proper regulatory framework that facilitates the development of cell therapy products, the regulatory framework has not been able to meet the country's regulatory requirements. This article introduced the development of regulation and current regulatory pathways for cell therapy in China and identified the main challenges in clinical studies. China has recently tightened its policy on cell therapy clinical studies after medical chaos occurred in the area of cell therapy over the past few years. Currently the regulatory jurisdiction between NMPA and NHC are not very clear, especially for clinical somatic cell research, further efforts are necessary to establish a legislative system with a clear and functional regulatory framework for cell therapy.

Current System of Overseeing Drug Trials in Developing Countries by the FDA Is Dangerous.

Clinical research used to substantiate Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval is increasingly being conducted overseas. One of the enticements to move overseas is unequal oversight by the FDA, and these differences can result in poor quality research and human subject risk. Downstream, patients, clinicians, and payers of health care can be harmed by inaccuracies in the new drug approval process. The need of the hour is to bridge the gap in the standards by ensuring that the investigators in the developing countries adhere to the same quality standards as the domestic investigators.

Clinical evidence supporting the marketing authorization of biosimilars in Europe.

PURPOSE: To review the marketing authorization of biosimilars and provide a critical analysis of the pivotal trials supporting their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). METHODS: EMA website to identify the biosimilars approved up to July 2019 and the European Public Assessment Report for information on pivotal trial design, duration, intervention and control, primary outcome, data on immunogenicity, and comparability margins. RESULTS: The EMA has approved 55 biosimilars (62% in 2017-2019) of 16 biologic products, used in several clinical indications. Some biosimilars were licensed as multiple products, with different commercial names, by the same or different companies. The comparability exercise and subsequent approval of 49/55 (89%) biosimilars were based on one or more pivotal phase III trials testing their clinical efficacy. In all, biosimilars were approved on the basis of 55 trials, mostly phase III (42/55, 76%) assessing clinical efficacy; these were mainly equivalence trials (31/55, 56%). The pivotal phase III trials assessed surrogate measures of clinical effect, and 71% reported immunogenicity data. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the approval of biosimilars in Europe depicts a complex and heterogeneous scenario. The requirement for showing similarity in terms of clinical efficacy and safety provides a robust demonstration of comparable clinical outcomes but lays a burden on biosimilar manufacturers and may delay the introduction of the drugs. The development, licensing, and monitoring of biosimilars would benefit from new strategies to accelerate access to these drugs while reducing uncertainties about their use in practice.

Regulatory changes after the enforcement of the new Clinical Trials Act in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in Japanese clinical trial regulations after the implementation of the Clinical Trials Act in April 2018. METHODS: First, how to apply multiple regulations after the enforcement of Clinical Trials Act was described. Second, the changes in the number of clinical trials in the National Cancer Center Hospital under each regulation were compared before and after the implementation of Clinical Trials Act. Third, new requirements imposed by Clinical Trials Act and their influences were discussed. RESULTS: In April 2018, Clinical Trials Act was enacted and academic clinical trials were classified into the following three categories: (i) investigator-initiated registration-directed trial under the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act; (ii) clinical trial under Clinical Trials Act; and (iii) clinical trial under the Ethical Guidelines. While 90% (205/227) of interventional studies were conducted under the Ethical Guidelines before the implementation of Clinical Trials Act in 2018, 46% (94/204) were subject to Clinical Trials Act in 2019 at the National Cancer Center Hospital. Under the Clinical Trials Act, investigators receive a scientific/ethical review by a certified review board (CRB). The identification of investigators in charge is mandated and they are required to submit the conflict of interest management plan to CRB. After the CRB review, the principal investigator must submit the trial plan to the government, and the content is uploaded to the newly established clinical trial registry site, the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials. CONCLUSIONS: The enforcement of the new Clinical Trials Act was supposed to improve the reliability of academic clinical trials in Japan; however, the financial and administrative burden may reduce clinical trial activity in the years to come.