EMA opens con­sul­ta­tion on guide­line for ad­vanced ther­a­pies in clin­i­cal tri­als

The EMA on Thurs­day opened for con­sul­ta­tion a new guide­line on the struc­ture and da­ta re­quire­ments for a clin­i­cal tri­al ap­pli­ca­tion for ex­plorato­ry and con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als with ad­vanced ther­a­py in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al med­i­c­i­nal prod­ucts (ATIMPs).

The 53-page guide­line ad­dress­es de­vel­op­ment, man­u­fac­tur­ing and qual­i­ty con­trol, fea­tur­ing sec­tions on qual­i­ty doc­u­men­ta­tion (in­clud­ing parts on the ac­tive sub­stance and the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al med­i­c­i­nal prod­uct), non-clin­i­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion and clin­i­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion.


Ac­cord­ing to the guide­line, ad­vanced ther­a­py med­i­c­i­nal prod­ucts (ATMPs) in­clude gene ther­a­py, so­mat­ic cell ther­a­py med­i­c­i­nal prod­ucts and tis­sue en­gi­neered prod­ucts.

“In gen­er­al, the de­vel­op­ment of an ATMP should fol­low the same gen­er­al prin­ci­ples as oth­er med­i­c­i­nal prod­ucts,” the EMA says. “How­ev­er, it is ac­knowl­edged that the dis­tinc­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics and fea­tures of ATMPs are ex­pect­ed to have an im­pact on prod­uct de­vel­op­ment.”

The EMA ad­vo­cates for a risk-based ap­proach in de­ter­min­ing the con­tent of an in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al med­i­c­i­nal prod­uct dossier (IM­PD), with ap­pli­cants per­form­ing an ini­tial risk analy­sis based on ex­ist­ing knowl­edge on the type of prod­uct and its in­tend­ed use.

“As­pects to be tak­en in­to con­sid­er­a­tion in­clude the ori­gin of the cells, the type of vec­tor and/or the method used for the ge­net­ic mod­i­fi­ca­tion, the man­u­fac­tur­ing process, the non-cel­lu­lar com­po­nents and the spe­cif­ic ther­a­peu­tic use as ap­plic­a­ble,” the guide­line says.

And the EMA warns that an im­ma­ture qual­i­ty de­vel­op­ment “may com­pro­mise the use of the study in the con­text of a mar­ket­ing au­tho­ri­sa­tion ap­pli­ca­tion (e.g. if the prod­uct has not been ad­e­quate­ly char­ac­terised). A weak qual­i­ty sys­tem may al­so com­pro­mise the ap­proval of the clin­i­cal tri­al if the safe­ty of tri­al sub­jects is at risk.”


In ex­plain­ing the de­vel­op­ment of such ATMP prod­ucts, the guide­line says that clin­i­cal tri­al phas­es “are usu­al­ly not as clear-cut as they might be for oth­er prod­uct types,” and ex­plorato­ry tri­als, in­clud­ing first-in-hu­man tri­als, are the main fo­cus of the guid­ance.

For con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als, which are per­formed to ob­tain piv­otal da­ta for a mar­ket­ing au­tho­riza­tion ap­pli­ca­tion (MAA), the guid­ance says de­vel­op­ers should al­so take in­to con­sid­er­a­tion ex­ist­ing rel­e­vant guide­lines out­lin­ing MAA re­quire­ments.

Un­der qual­i­ty doc­u­men­ta­tion, the guide­line notes that the IM­PD should be di­vid­ed in­to a drug sub­stance (DS) and a drug prod­uct (DP) sec­tion. “For cer­tain ATIMPs, the start­ing ma­te­r­i­al, the ac­tive sub­stance and the fin­ished prod­uct can be close­ly re­lat­ed or near­ly iden­ti­cal. The ac­tive sub­stance, any in­ter­me­di­ate and the fi­nal prod­uct should be iden­ti­fied, if pos­si­ble. In those cas­es where the ATIMPs pro­duc­tion is a con­tin­u­ous process, it is not nec­es­sary to re­peat the in­for­ma­tion that was al­ready pro­vid­ed in the DS part, in­to the DP sec­tion.”

Un­der the ac­tive sub­stance sec­tion, the guide­line says the pro­posed mech­a­nism of ac­tion “should be pre­sent­ed and form the ba­sis for the de­f­i­n­i­tion of the rel­e­vant prop­er­ties of the ac­tive sub­stance in­clud­ing bi­o­log­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty (i.e. the spe­cif­ic abil­i­ty or ca­pac­i­ty of a prod­uct to achieve a de­fined bi­o­log­i­cal ef­fect).”

As far as the ATIMP man­u­fac­tur­ing process and process con­trols, the guide­line rec­om­mends care­ful de­sign and con­cise, step-by-step de­scrip­tions. “The suit­abil­i­ty of the con­trols for the in­tend­ed pur­pose needs to be proven,” the EMA says.

But it’s the non-clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment that is re­al­ly unique for ATMPs, es­pe­cial­ly as the EMA says “po­ten­tial flex­i­bil­i­ty can be ap­plied.”

“The non-clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment path­way for ATMPs may be sig­nif­i­cant­ly dif­fer­ent from the one for oth­er med­i­c­i­nal prod­ucts in­clud­ing the tim­ing of stud­ies. The se­quen­tial non-clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment in which the amount of da­ta re­quired and the du­ra­tion of dos­ing in­crease by the phase of clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment and by the num­ber of pa­tients, is not gen­er­al­ly ap­plic­a­ble for ATMPs,” the guide­line ad­vis­es.

In­stead, in many cas­es, the guide­line says, most non-clin­i­cal da­ta may need to be avail­able be­fore hu­man ex­po­sure.

“In gen­er­al, the non-clin­i­cal da­ta sup­port­ing the safe use of an ATMP in hu­mans should pro­vide in­for­ma­tion for the es­ti­ma­tion of the safe and bi­o­log­i­cal­ly ef­fec­tive dose(s) to be used in clin­i­cal tri­als, sup­port the fea­si­bil­i­ty of the ad­min­is­tra­tion route and the ap­pro­pri­ate ap­pli­ca­tion pro­ce­dure, iden­ti­fy safe­ty con­cerns and tar­get or­gans for po­ten­tial tox­i­c­i­ty and iden­ti­fy safe­ty pa­ra­me­ters to be fol­lowed in the clin­i­cal tri­als,” the guide­line says.

As for clin­i­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion, the guide­line al­so notes that the dis­tinc­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics and fea­tures of ATMPs are ex­pect­ed to have an im­pact on the tri­al de­sign, specif­i­cal­ly with re­gard to ear­ly phase tri­als and dose se­lec­tion, phar­ma­co­dy­nam­ics and phar­ma­co­ki­net­ics/biodis­tri­b­u­tion, while the gen­er­al prin­ci­ples in late phase tri­als to demon­strate ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty in the spe­cif­ic ther­a­peu­tic area are less af­fect­ed and are es­sen­tial­ly the same as for oth­er prod­ucts.

Com­ments on the con­sul­ta­tion are due by 1 Au­gust.

First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.


Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Part club, part guide, part land­lord: Arie Bellde­grun is blue­print­ing a string of be­spoke biotech com­plex­es in glob­al boom­towns — start­ing with Boston

The biotech industry is getting a landlord, unlike anything it’s ever known before.

Inspired by his recent experiences scrounging for space in Boston and the Bay Area, master biotech builder, investor, and global dealmaker Arie Belldegrun has organized a new venture to build a new, 250,000 square foot biopharma building in Boston’s Seaport district — home to Vertex and a number of up-and-coming biotech players.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 54,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Novotech CRO Ex­pands Chi­na Team as Biotech De­mand for Clin­i­cal Tri­als In­creas­es up to 79%

An increase in demand of up to 79% for clinical trials in China has prompted Novotech the Asia-Pacific CRO to rapidly expand the China team, appointing expert local clinical executives to their Shanghai and Hong Kong offices. The company is planning to expand their team by 30% over the next quarter.

Novotech China has seen considerable demand recently which is borne out by research from GlobalData:
A global migration of clinical research is occurring from high-income countries to low and middle-income countries with emerging economies. Over the period 2017 to 2018, for example, the number of clinical trial sites opened by biotech companies in Asia-Pacific increased by 35% compared to 8% in the rest of the world, with growth as high as 79% in China.
Novotech CEO Dr John Moller said China offers the largest population in the world, rapid economic growth, and an increasing willingness by government to invest in research and development.
Novotech’s 23 years of experience working in the region means we are the ideal CRO partner for USA biotechs wanting to tap the research expertise and opportunities that China offers.
There are over 22,000 active investigators in Greater China, with about 5,000 investigators with experience on at least 3 studies (source GlobalData).

H1 analy­sis: The high-stakes ta­ble in the biotech deals casi­no is pay­ing out some record-set­ting win­nings

For years the big trend among dealmakers at the major players has been centered on ratcheting down upfront payments in favor of bigger milestones. Better known as biobucks for some. But with the top 15 companies competing for the kind of “transformative” pacts that can whip up some excitement on Wall Street, with some big biotechs like Regeneron now weighing in as well, cash is king at the high stakes table.

We asked Chris Dokomajilar, the head of DealForma, to crunch the numbers for us, looking over the top 20 deals for the past decade and breaking it all down into the top alliances already created in 2019. Gilead has clearly tipped the scales in terms of the coin of the bio-realm, with its record-setting $5 billion upfront to tie up to Galapagos’ entire pipeline.

Dokomajilar notes:

We’re going to need a ‘three comma club’ for the deals with over $1 billion in total upfront cash and equity. The $100 million-plus club is getting crowded at 164 deals in the last decade with new deals being added towards the top of the chart. 2019 already has 14 deals with at least $100 million in upfront cash and equity for a total year-to-date of over $9 billion. That beats last year’s $8 billion and sets a record.

Add upfronts and equity payments and you get $11.5 billion for the year, just shy of last year’s record-setting $11.8 billion.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

UP­DAT­ED: With loom­ing ‘apoc­a­lypse of drug re­sis­tance,’ Mer­ck’s com­bi­na­tion an­tibi­ot­ic scores FDA ap­proval on two fronts

Merck — one of the last large biopharmaceuticals companies in the beleaguered field of antibiotic drug development — on Wednesday said the FDA had sanctioned the approval of its combination antibacterial for the treatment of complicated urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections.

To curb the rise of drug-resistant bacteria and maintain the efficacy of the therapy, Recarbrio (and other antibacterials) — the drug must be used to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected to be caused by susceptible gram-negative bacteria, Merck $MRK said.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 54,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

John McHutchison in 2012. Getty Images

The $1.1M good­bye: Gilead CSO John McHutchi­son is out as Daniel O’Day shakes up the se­nior team

Just a little more than a year after John McHutchison grabbed a promotion to become CSO at Gilead in the wake of Norbert Bischofberger’s exit, he’s out amid a shakeup of the senior team that is also triggering the departure of two other top execs.

Gilead stated that McHutchison “has decided to step down” from the job as of August 2nd. And their SEC filing notes that he’ll be getting a $1.1 million check to settle up on his contract.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 54,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Thomas Gajewski, David Steinberg. (CRI, Pyxis)

Bay­er, Long­wood back star re­searcher's deep dive in­to the tu­mor mi­croen­vi­ron­ment for new I/O tar­gets

From PD-1 targeting to the RAS pathway to the STING complex, Thomas Gajewski has spent the past two decades of his career decoding the various ways the immune system can be unleashed to defend against cancer. So when the University of Chicago professor comes around to putting all his findings into a new platform for finding new targets, VCs and pharma groups alike pay attention.

“He’s been studying T cells for 20 years, plus he’s one of the world’s leaders if not the world leader in the space,” David Steinberg, partner at Longwood Fund, said. “Furthermore, let me add he did a lot of the foundational research and also some of the seminal clinical trials in the existing set of I/O agents. He understands the space really well, he understands the current strengths, and I think he understood really well what was missing, so he knew where to look.”

Kamala Harris speaking yesterday at the Des Moines Register Iowa Presidential Candidate Forum [via Getty]

Who’s the tough­est on drug prices? A game of po­lit­i­cal one-up­man­ship is dri­ving the pol­i­cy de­bate in Wash­ing­ton

Earlier this week we got a look at Senator Kamala Harris’ position on drug prices. She’s proposing that HHS take an average price from single-payer systems like the UK, Germany and Canada — which leverage market access for lower prices — and use that to set the US price. Anything drug companies collect above that would be taxed at a rate of 100%.

And the rhetoric is scathing:
While families struggle to make it to the end of the month, pharmaceutical companies are turning record profits. They’re spending nearly as much on advertising as R&D. They’re manipulating their market power to hike prices on lifesaving generic drugs. They’re making twice the profit of the average industry in America and still increased drug prices by 10.5% over the past six months alone. Meanwhile, they are charging dramatically higher prices to American consumers.
That’s an escalation on Joe Biden’s plan, which includes drug importation from those cheaper markets as well as allowing Medicare to negotiate prices — something that virtually all Dems agree on now.

SJ Lee [File photo]

Go­ing in­side cells, Sung Joo Lee has sketched some big goals for his small — but glob­al — team of drug hunters

For a small biotech based in South Korea with a research arm in Cambridge, MA, Orum Therapeutics has sketched out some big goals aimed at developing antibodies for intracellular targets. And now they have a new $30 million round to push the work forward, aiming at a slate of currently undruggable quests.

Orum has been working on a platform tech out of Ajou University that relies on endocytosis to smuggle antibodies and their cargo inside a cell. They’ve published work in Nature that illustrates its preclinical potential in RAS mutations, and KRAS is on their list of targets. 

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 54,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Astel­las buys in­to Fre­quen­cy's re­gen­er­a­tive med strat­e­gy with a $625M al­liance on hear­ing loss

The executive team at Frequency Therapeutics never oversold the results of their maiden Phase I/II study for a new drug to rectify hearing loss. It was, they said back in April, primarily about safety and tolerability, where their drug FX-322 performed as they had hoped. 

That early glimpse of efficacy everyone searches for in their first try on humans? 

(I)mprovements in hearing function, including audiometry and word scores, were observed in multiple FX-322 treated patients.

We don’t know exactly what that means. But whatever the details, Astellas found enough in the data to jump in with a sizable collaboration deal.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 54,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.