Lessons Learned from Approval of Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease.

When the US Food and Drug Administration used the accelerated approval process to authorize the use of the antiamyloid drug aducanumab to treat Alzheimer's disease (AD), many people hoped this signaled a new era of disease-modifying treatment. But 2 years later, aducanumab's failure to launch provides a cautionary tale about the complexities of dementia and the need for a thorough and transparent review of the role that regulatory agencies and various stakeholders play in approving AD drugs. We highlight the events leading to aducanumab's controversial approval and discuss some of the key lessons learned from the drug's failure to deliver the hoped-for benefits. These lessons include the inherent limitations of antiamyloid strategies for a complex disease in which amyloid is only one of several pathological processes, the need for clinical trials that better reflect the diversity of communities affected by AD, the potential pitfalls of futility analyses in clinical trials, the need for greater transparency and other modifications to the approval process, and the dementia field's unreadiness to move from the highly controlled environment of clinical trials to the widespread and chronic use of resource-intensive, disease-modifying drugs in real-world treatment scenarios. People with dementia desperately need effective therapies. We hope that the aducanumab story will inspire changes to the approval process-changes that restore public trust and improve future efforts to deliver disease-modifying therapies to the clinic.

Regulatory Considerations in the Approval of Rezafungin (REZZAYO) for the Treatment of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis in Adults.

On March 22, 2023, the FDA approved rezafungin (REZZAYO) for the treatment of candidemia and invasive candidiasis in adults with limited or no alternative treatment options. Rezafungin is an echinocandin that supports weekly dosing, enabling outpatient parenteral treatment that potentially avoids the need for a central venous catheter. Approval of rezafungin was based on a single adequate and well-controlled phase 3 study designed with a Day 30 all-cause mortality primary endpoint and 20% noninferiority margin, which demonstrated that rezafungin is noninferior to the comparator echinocandin. Nonclinical studies of rezafungin in non-human primates identified a neurotoxicity safety signal; however, rezafungin's safety profile in the completed clinical studies was similar to other FDA-approved echinocandins. Here we describe the rationale for this approval and important considerations during the review process for a flexible development program intended to expedite the availability of antimicrobial therapies to treat serious infections in patients with limited treatment options.

Financial conflicts of interest among presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology FDA workshops.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and financial conflicts of interest of presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with or hosted by the US FDA. SETTING: We included information on all publicly available haematology or oncology FDA workshop agendas held between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022. EXPOSURE: General and research payments reported on Open Payments, industry funding to patient advocacy organizations reported on their webpages or 990 tax forms and employment in both pharmaceutical and regulatory settings. RESULTS: Among physicians eligible for payments, 78% received at least one payment from the industry between 2017 and 2021. The mean general payment amount was $82,170 for all years ($16,434 per year) and the median was $14,906 for all years ($2981 per year). Sixty-nine per cent of patient advocacy speakers were representing organizations that received financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Among those representing regulatory agencies or pharmaceutical companies, 16% had worked in both settings during their careers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings in this cross-sectional study show a majority of US-based physician presenters at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with members of the US FDA have some financial conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These findings support the need for clear disclosures and suggest that a more balanced selection of presenters with fewer conflicts may help to limit bias in discussions between multiple stakeholders.

A Milestone in the Treatment of Ataxias: Approval of Omaveloxolone for Friedreich Ataxia.

The exciting news about the US FDA approval of omaveloxolone as the first-ever drug to be approved for an inherited ataxia is welcome news for patients and families that deal with this devastating disease as well as for health care providers and investigators with an interest in this and other rare diseases. This event is the culmination of long and fruitful collaboration between patients, their families, clinicians, laboratory researchers, patient advocacy organizations, industry, and regulatory agencies. The process has generated intense discussion about outcome measures, biomarkers, trial design, and the nature of approval process for such diseases. It also has brought hope and enthusiasm for increasingly better therapies for genetic diseases in general.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of irritability associated with autism spectrum disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is an early-onset disorder with a prevalence of 1% among children and reported disability-adjusted life years of 4.31 million. Irritability is a challenging behavior associated with ASD, for which medication development has lagged. More specifically, pharmacotherapy effectiveness may be limited against high adverse effects (considering side effect profiles and patient medication sensitivity); thus, the possible benefits of pharmacological interventions must be balanced against potential adverse events in each patient. AREAS COVERED: After reviewing the neuropathophysiology of ASD-associated irritability, the benefits and tolerability of emerging medications in its treatment based on randomized controlled trials were detailed in light of mechanisms and targets of action. EXPERT OPINION: Succeeding risperidone and aripiprazole, monotherapy with memantine may be beneficial. In addition, N-acetylcysteine, galantamine, sulforaphane, celecoxib, palmitoylethanolamide, pentoxifylline, simvastatin, minocycline, amantadine, pregnenolone, prednisolone, riluzole, propentofylline, pioglitazone, and topiramate, all adjunct to risperidone, and clonidine and methylphenidate outperformed placebo. These effects were through glutamatergic, γ-aminobutyric acidergic, inflammatory, oxidative, cholinergic, dopaminergic, and serotonergic systems. All medications were reported to be safe and tolerable. Considering sample size, follow-up, and effect size, further studies are necessary. Along with drug development, repositioning and combining existing drugs supported by the mechanism of action is recommended.

Toward Patient-Centered Drug Approval for Treatment of Rare Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: This commentary seeks to improve the design and analysis of trials undertaken to obtain approval of drugs for treatment of rare diseases. METHODS: Methodological analysis reveals that use of hypothesis testing in the Food and Drug Administration drug approval process is harmful. Conventional asymmetric error probabilities bias the approval process against approval of new drugs. Hypothesis testing is inattentive to the relative magnitudes of losses to patient welfare when types 1 and 2 errors occur. Requiring the sample size to be large enough to guarantee the specified statistical power particularly inhibits the development of new drugs for treating rare diseases. Rarity of a disease makes it difficult to enroll the number of trial subjects needed to meet the statistical power standards for drug approval. RESULTS: Use of statistical decision theory in drug approval would overcome these serious deficiencies of hypothesis testing. Sample size would remain relevant to drug approval, but the criterion used to evaluate sample size would change. Rather than judging sample size by statistical power, the Food and Drug Administration could require a sample to be large enough to provide a specified nearness to optimality of the approval decision. CONCLUSIONS: Using nearness to optimality to set sample size and making approval decisions to minimize distance from optimality would particularly benefit the evaluation of drugs for treatment of rare diseases. It would enable a dramatic reduction in sample size relative to current norms, without compromising the clinical informativeness of trials.

Clinically Important Benefits and Harms of Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Amyloid for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate clinically meaningful benefits and harms of monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid in patients with Alzheimer dementia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and 5 trial registries, as well as the reference lists of identified studies. We included randomized controlled trials comparing a monoclonal antibody with placebo at a dose consistent with that used in phase 3 trials or for Food and Drug Administration approval. Studies had to report at least 1 clinically relevant benefit or harm. Data were extracted independently by at least 2 researchers for random effects meta-analysis. Changes in cognitive and functional scales were compared between groups, and each difference was assessed to determine if it met the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: We identified 19 publications with 23,202 total participants that evaluated 8 anti-amyloid antibodies. There were small improvements over placebo in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS)-Cog-11 to -14 score (standardized mean difference = -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.04), Mini Mental State Examination score (0.32 points; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.50), and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes scale score (mean difference =-0.18 points; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.03), and the combined functional scores (standardized mean difference = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.13). None of the changes, including those for lecanemab, aducanumab, and donanemab, exceeded the MCID. Harms included significantly increased risks of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA)-edema (relative risk [RR] = 10.29; number needed to harm [NNH] = 9), ARIA-hemorrhage (RR = 1.74; NNH = 13), and symptomatic ARIA-edema (RR = 24.3; NNH = 86). CONCLUSIONS: Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms.

Fixed Versus Body-Sized-Based Dosing of Monoclonal Antibodies.

Monoclonal antibody products are an increasing portion of novel drug approvals. The labeling of initial drug approvals frequently involves body-size-based rather than fixed-dose administration regimens for adults without clear rationale for doing so. This presents challenges when prescribing these products for patients with extremes of body habitus who constitute a small portion of enrollment in pre-approval investigations. Fixed-dose regimens allow for standardized preparation with the potential to reduce the risk of calculation errors, drug waste, and make home administration more practical. Fixed-dose rather than body-size-based monoclonal antibody regimens should serve as the initial approach in early phase 1 clinical trials.

The role of real-world evidence for regulatory and public health decision-making for Accelerated Vaccine Deployment- a meeting report.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for rapid evidence generation to inform public health decisions beyond the limitations of conventional clinical trials. This report summarises presentations and discussions from a conference on the role of Real-World Evidence (RWE) in expediting vaccine deployment. Attended by regulatory bodies, public health entities, and industry experts, the gathering was a collaborative exchange of experiences and recommendations for leveraging RWE for vaccine deployment. RWE proved instrumental in refining decision-making processes to optimise dosing regimens, enhance guidance on target populations, and steer vaccination strategies against emerging variants. Participants felt that RWE was successfully integrated into lifecycle management, encompassing boosters and safety considerations. However, challenges emerged, prompting a call for improvements in data quality, standardisation, and availability, acknowledging the variability and potential inaccuracies in data across diverse healthcare systems. Regulatory transparency should also be prioritised to foster public trust, and improved collaborations with governments are needed to streamline data collection and navigate data privacy regulations. Moreover, building and sustaining resources, expertise, and infrastructure in LMICs emerged as imperative for RWE-generating capabilities. Continued stakeholder collaboration and securing adequate funding emerged as vital pillars for advancing the use of RWE in shaping responsive and effective public health strategies.

Real-world data for precision cancer medicine-A European perspective.

Leveraging real-world data (RWD) for drug access is necessary to overcome a key challenge of modern precision oncology: tackling numerous low-prevalence oncogenic mutations across cancers. Withholding a potentially active medication in patients with rare mutations for the sake of control chemotherapy or "best" supportive care is neither practicable nor ethically justifiable anymore, particularly as RWD could meanwhile be used instead, according to scientific principles outlined by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and other stakeholders. However, practical implementation varies, with occasionally opposite recommendations based on the same evidence in different countries. In the face of growing need for precision drugs, more transparency of evaluation, a priori availability of guidance for the academia and industry, as well as a harmonized framework for health technology assessment across the European Union (EU) are imperative. These could in turn trigger infrastructural changes in national and pan-European registries, cancer management guidelines (e.g., frequency of routine radiologic restaging, inclusion of patient-reported outcomes), and the health data space, to ensure conformity with declared standards and facilitate extraction of RWD sets (including patient-level data) suitable for approval and pricing with minimal effort. For an EU-wide unification of precision cancer medicine, collective negotiation of drug supply contracts and funding solidarity would additionally be required to handle the financial burden. According to experience from pivotal European programs, off-label use could potentially also be harmonized across EU-states to accelerate availability of novel drugs, streamline collection of valuable RWD, and mitigate related costs through wider partnerships with pharmaceutical companies.

The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020.

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I2  = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

Differential treatment effect between younger and older adults for new cancer therapies in solid tumors supporting US Food and Drug Administration approval between 2010 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: Over one half of cancer diagnoses occur in patients aged 65 and older. The authors quantified how treatment effects differ between older and younger patients in oncology registration trials. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of registration trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration approval of cancer drugs (from January 2010 to December 2021). The primary outcome was differential treatment effect by age (younger than 65 years vs. 65 years or older) for progression-free survival and overall survival. Random effects meta-analysis and a pairwise comparison of outcomes by age group also were performed. RESULTS: Among 263 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 120 trials with 153 end points and 83,152 patients presented age-specific outcome data. Among the included randomized patients, 38% were aged 65 years and older compared with an incidence proportion of 55% in data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Studies evaluating prostate cancer had the highest representation of patients aged 65 years or older (73%), whereas breast cancer studies had the lowest (20%). There were no changes in the proportion of patients aged 65 years or older over time (p = .86). Only 7% of end points showed a statistically significant interaction between outcome and age group. In a pooled analysis, there was an association between treatment effect and age for progression-free survival that approached but did not meet significance (hazard ratio, 0.95; p = .06), and there was no difference for overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.97; p = .79). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults remain under-represented in oncology registration trials. Significant differences in outcomes by age group were uncommon in individual trials and pooled analyses. However, clinical trial participants differ from real-world patients older than 65 years, and increased enrollment and ongoing research into differential treatment effects by age are needed.

Are high-cost drug funding mechanisms fit for purpose? A retrospective study of individual funding requests in an NHS tertiary hospital.

AIMS: To report on a retrospective study of individual funding request (IFR) submissions from a large tertiary hospital and describe gaps in current mechanisms for funding of high-cost medicines in England. METHODS: Data on the number and outcome of IFR submissions submitted to commissioners between 2014/15 and 2018/19 was extracted from the electronic patient health record and a local high-cost drug database. RESULTS: In total, 230 IFRs were submitted: 112 to NHS England and 118 to a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The decline rate for IFRs was 71% for NHS England and 34% for CCGs. Lack of exceptionality was the primary reason cited for declining IFRs submitted between 2016-18 (n = 42/45; 93%). Half of the patients whose IFR was declined received treatment funded through other routes, the majority (13/23; 57%) from internal hospital budget. This was governed via a local high-cost drug panel. Positive clinical outcomes were observed in 50% (4/8) of patients who received NHS England IFR-funded treatment, 54% (19/35) who received CCG IFR-funded treatment and 91% (21/23) who were funded via other routes. CONCLUSION: The high rate of IFR decline signals inefficient use of resource expended in the IFR process. Gaps in access to high-cost medicines remain for patients with rare and refractory disease requiring urgent treatment, largely due to the demand for exceptionality from NHS commissioners. Local mechanisms address this unmet need but have limitations. An outcomes-based evaluation approach to commissioning and greater transparency of previous funding decisions by commissioners may improve efficiency and equity in the IFR system.

Drug approval delays in hematologic malignancies between Europe and the US and between Japan and the US: a clinical perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Since novel therapeutic agents for malignancies are developed rapidly mainly in the US, the interval of approval timing between the US and other countries is an important issue. Among them, drugs for hematologic malignancies tended to have a particularly long delays in Japan, but its characteristics have not been fully understood. This study assessed the approval delays in drugs for hematologic malignancies in Japan compared with that in Europe. METHODS: Using the public database of Europe, Japan and the US, we analyzed the differences in drug approval delays between Europe and the US and between Japan and US according to disease. New molecular entity drugs for hematologic malignancies that were already approved in the US and were approved from April 2010 to March 2022 in Europe or Japan were identified. RESULTS: The results showed the longer drug approval delays in Japan compared with that in Europe (29 vs. 9.4 months, median), presumably due to the lower proportion of participation in global clinical trials (37 vs. 94%). Notably, the participation rate in global clinical trials varied widely by disease in Japan, resulting in a greater difference in drug approval delays by disease. In contrast, when focusing on early phase trials, Japanese participation was uniformly very limited regardless of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provided data that can be used as a basis for discussion on how to improve drug approval delays in drugs for hematologic malignancies.

Biosimilars approvals by thirteen regulatory authorities: A cross-national comparison.

Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to a previously licensed reference product and their licensing is expected to improve access to biological therapies. This study aims to present an overview of biosimilars approval by thirteen regulatory authorities (RA). The study is a cross-national comparison of regulatory decisions involving biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru and United States. We examined publicly available documents containing information regarding the approval of biosimilars and investigated the publication of public assessment reports for registration applications, guidelines for biosimilars licensing, and products approved. Data extraction was conducted by a network of researchers and regulatory experts. All the RA had issued guidance documents establishing the requirements for the licensing of biosimilars. However, only three RA had published public assessment reports for registration applications. In total, the investigated jurisdictions had from 19 to 78 biosimilars approved, most of them licensed from 2018 to 2020. In spite of the advance in the number of products in recent years, some challenges still persist. Limited access to information regarding the assessment of biosimilars by RA can affect confidence, which may ultimately impact adoption of these products in practice.

[Particularities and problems of psychopharmacology in childhood and adolescence]. / Besonderheiten und Probleme der Psychopharmakologie im Kindes- und Jugendalter.

The drug treatment of mental illness in childhood and adolescence poses a particular clinical and legal challenge. Reasons for this include the often necessary off-label use and existing knowledge gaps regarding the long-term effects of the neuro-/psychotropic drugs used. In this article, the prerequisites for therapy with neuro/psychotropic drugs, such as the need for age-appropriate inclusion of children and adolescents in the decision-making and education process, as well as the evaluation of medication, the consideration of biological age- and maturation-related factors, and the special measures for off-label use, are discussed. We further discuss general problems in the development and use of neuro-/psychotropic drugs, such as the difficulties in relation to proof of effectiveness, reimbursement and liability issues of off-label administration, and the problems of conducting clinical trials with children and adolescents.

Physician Perceptions of the FDA's Breakthrough Therapy Designation: An Update.

The US Food and Drug Administration developed the Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite the development and review of drugs that show a clear advantage over available therapy for serious conditions. Prior research has shown that physicians tend to misunderstand that a drug may receive a Breakthrough Therapy designation based on preliminary clinical evidence (eg, effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is likely to predict clinical benefit). The objective of this article is to examine whether physicians' familiarity with and interpretation of the Breakthrough Therapy designation have changed since a survey on the topic was published in 2016. We replicated three of the questions in that study and explored beliefs that a Breakthrough Therapy designation automatically qualifies a drug for accelerated approval. We also draw comparisons by specialization (oncologists vs. primary care physicians). In general, physicians remain more likely than not to misunderstand the Breakthrough Therapy designation.

Data-sharing and re-analysis for main studies assessed by the European Medicines Agency-a cross-sectional study on European Public Assessment Reports.

BACKGROUND: Transparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency. METHODS: Two researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/mcw3t/.

Terlipressin and the Treatment of Hepatorenal Syndrome: How the CONFIRM Trial Moves the Story Forward.

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a form of acute kidney injury (AKI) occurring in patients with advanced cirrhosis and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The pathophysiology underlying HRS begins with increasing portal pressures leading to the release of vasodilatory substances that result in pooling blood in the splanchnic system and a corresponding reduction in effective circulating volume. Compensatory activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and release of arginine vasopressin serve to defend mean arterial pressure but at the cost of severe constriction of the renal vasculature, leading to a progressive, often fulminant form of AKI. There are no approved treatments for HRS in the United States, but multiple countries, including much of Europe, use terlipressin, a synthetic vasopressin analogue, as a first-line therapy. CONFIRM (A Multi-Center, Randomized, Placebo Controlled, Double-Blind Study to Confirm Efficacy and Safety of Terlipressin in Subjects With Hepatorenal Syndrome Type 1), the third randomized trial based in North America evaluating terlipressin, met its primary end point of showing greater rates of HRS reversal in the terlipressin arm. However, due to concerns about the apparent increased rates of respiratory adverse events and a lack of evidence for mortality benefit, terlipressin was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We explore the history of regulatory approval for terlipressin in the United States, examine the results from CONFIRM and the concerns they raised, and consider the future role of terlipressin in this critical clinical area of continued unmet need.

Improving Clinical Trials for Anticomplement Therapies in Complement-Mediated Glomerulopathies: Report of a Scientific Workshop Sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation.

Blocking the complement system as a therapeutic strategy has been proposed for numerous glomerular diseases but presents myriad questions and challenges, not the least of which is demonstrating efficacy and safety. In light of these potential issues and because there are an increasing number of anticomplement therapy trials either planned or under way, the National Kidney Foundation facilitated an all-virtual scientific workshop entitled "Improving Clinical Trials for Anti-Complement Therapies in Complement-Mediated Glomerulopathies." Attended by patient representatives and experts in glomerular diseases, complement physiology, and clinical trial design, the aim of this workshop was to develop standards applicable for designing and conducting clinical trials for anticomplement therapies across a wide spectrum of complement-mediated glomerulopathies. Discussions focused on study design, participant risk assessment and mitigation, laboratory measurements and biomarkers to support these studies, and identification of optimal outcome measures to detect benefit, specifically for trials in complement-mediated diseases. This report summarizes the discussions from this workshop and outlines consensus recommendations.