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.

Back­ground

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.”

Guide­line

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.

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Aerial view of Genentech's campus in South San Francisco [Credit: Getty]

Genen­tech sub­mits a big plan to ex­pand its South San Fran­cis­co foot­print

The sign is still there, a quaint reminder of whitewashed concrete not 5 miles from Genentech’s sprawling, chrome-and-glass campus: South Francisco The Industrial City. 

The city keeps the old sign, first erected in 1923, as a tourist site and a kind of civic memento to the days it packed meat, milled lumber and burned enough steel to earn the moniker “Smokestack of the Peninsula.” But the real indication of where you are and how much has changed both in San Francisco and in the global economy since a couple researchers and investors rented out an empty warehouse 40 years ago comes in a far smaller blue sign, resembling a Rotary Club post, off the highway: South San Francisco, The Birthplace of Biotech.

Here comes the oral GLP-1 drug for di­a­betes — but No­vo Nordisk is­n't dis­clos­ing Ry­bel­sus price just yet

Novo Nordisk’s priority review voucher on oral semaglutide has paid off. The FDA approval for the GLP-1 drug hit late Friday morning, around six months after the NDA filing.

Rybelsus will be the first GLP-1 pill to enter the type 2 diabetes market — a compelling offering that analysts have pegged as a blockbuster drug with sales estimates ranging from $2 billion to $5 billion.

Ozempic, the once-weekly injectable formulation of semaglutide, brought in around $552 million (DKK 3.75 billion) in the first half of 2019.

As Nas­daq en­rolls the fi­nal batch of 2019 IPOs, how have the num­bers com­pared to past years?

IGM Biosciences’ upsized IPO haul, coming after SpringWorks’ sizable public debut, has revved up some momentum for the last rush of biotech IPOs in 2019.

With 39 new listings on the books and roughly two more months to go before winding down, Nasdaq’s head of healthcare listings Jordan Saxe sees the exchange marking 50 to 60 biopharma IPOs for the year.

“December 15 is usually the last possible day that companies will price,” he said, as companies get ready for business talks at the annual JP Morgan Healthcare Conference in January.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 60,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Oxitec biologist releases genetically modified mosquitoes in Piracicaba, Brazil in 2016 [credit: Getty Images]

In­trex­on unit push­es back against claims its GM mos­qui­toes are mak­ing dis­ease-friend­ly mu­tants

When the hysteria of Zika transmission sprang into the American zeitgeist a few years ago, UK-based Oxitec was already field-testing its male Aedes aegypti mosquito, crafted to possess a gene engineered to obliterate its progeny long before maturation.

But when a group of independent scientists evaluated the impact of the release of these genetically-modified mosquitoes in a trial conducted by Oxitec in Brazil between 2013 and 2015, they found that some of the offspring had managed to survive — prompting them to speculate what impact the survivors could have on disease transmission and/or insecticide resistance.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 60,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

[via AP Images]

Pur­due threat­ens to walk away from set­tle­ment, asks to pay em­ploy­ees mil­lions in bonus­es

There are two updates on the lawsuit against Purdue Pharma over its role in fueling the opioid epidemic, as the Sackler family threatens to walk away from their pledge to pay out $3 billion if a bankruptcy judge does not stop outstanding state lawsuits against them. At the same time, the company has asked permission to pay millions in bonuses to select employees.

Purdue filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy this week as part of its signed resolution to over 2,000 lawsuits. The deal would see the Sackler family that owns Purdue give $3 billion from their personal wealth and the company turned into a trust committed to curbing and reversing overdoses.

David Grainger [file photo]

'Dis­con­nect the bas­tard­s' — one biotech's plan to break can­cer cell­s' uni­fied de­fens­es

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are the current gladiators of cancer treatment, but they come with well-known limitations and side-effects. The emergence of immunotherapy — a ferocious new titan in oncologist’s toolbox — takes the brakes off the immune system to kill cancer cells with remarkable success in some cases, but the approach is not always effective. What makes certain forms of cancer so resilient? Scientists may have finally pieced together a tantalizing piece of the puzzle, and a new biotech is banking on a new approach to fill the gap.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 60,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

A fa­vorite in Alex­ion’s C-suite is leav­ing, and some mighty sur­prised an­a­lysts aren’t the least bit hap­py about it

Analysts hate to lose a biotech CFO they’ve come to trust and admire — especially if they’re being blindsided by a surprise exit.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 60,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Scott Gottlieb, AP Images

Scott Got­tlieb is once again join­ing a team that en­joyed good times at the FDA un­der his high-en­er­gy stint at the helm

Right after jumping on Michael Milken’s FasterCures board on Monday, the newly departed FDA commissioner is back today with news about another life sciences board post that gives him a ringside chair to cheer on a lead player in the real-world evidence movement — one with very close ties to the FDA.

Aetion is reporting this morning that Gottlieb is joining their board, a group that includes Mohamad Makhzoumi, a general partner at New Enterprise Associates, where Gottlieb returned after stepping out of his role at the FDA 2 years after he started.

Gottlieb — one of the best connected execs in biopharma — knows this company well. As head of FDA he championed the use of real-world evidence to help guide drug developers and the agency in gaining greater efficiencies, which helped set up Aetion as a high-profile player in the game.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 60,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tower Bridge in London [Shutterstock]

#UK­BIO19: Join GSK’s Hal Bar­ron and a group of top biotech ex­ecs for our 2nd an­nu­al biotech sum­mit in Lon­don

Over the past 10 years I’ve made a point of getting to know the Golden Triangle and the special role the UK biopharma industry plays there in drug development. The concentration of world class research institutes, some of the most accomplished scientists I’ve ever seen at work and a rising tide of global investment cash leaves an impression that there’s much, much more to come as biotech hubs are birthed and nurtured.