FDA, EMA ad­vise on risk-based mon­i­tor­ing in clin­i­cal tri­als

US and EU of­fi­cials ex­plained on Wednes­day what their re­spec­tive reg­u­la­to­ry agen­cies look for in clin­i­cal tri­al risk-based mon­i­tor­ing (RBM) and how RBM can im­pact re­view times.

Un­der a co­op­er­a­tive agree­ment with the FDA, the Duke-Mar­go­lis Health Pol­i­cy Cen­ter con­vened the pub­lic work­shop in Wash­ing­ton, DC for a de­bate on im­prov­ing the im­ple­men­ta­tion of RBM in clin­i­cal tri­als by iden­ti­fy­ing how reg­u­la­tors can help with some of the cur­rent bar­ri­ers to wide­spread adop­tion of RBM. Par­tic­i­pants looked for clar­i­fi­ca­tion around how reg­u­la­tors’ ap­proach­es to RBM dif­fer.

The FDA Of­fice of Sci­en­tif­ic In­ves­ti­ga­tions (OSI) Di­rec­tor David Bur­row stressed that “ter­mi­nol­o­gy is crit­i­cal.” Hav­ing rec­og­nized that the FDA and the EMA “may slight­ly dif­fer in the ter­mi­nol­o­gy that we use in the risk-based qual­i­ty man­age­ment (RBQM) con­ver­sa­tion,” Bur­row iden­ti­fied com­mon el­e­ments in RBM.

The el­e­ments com­prise a three-part process to plan and de­vel­op RBM sys­tems such that the end re­sults align with the ex­pec­ta­tions of agency re­view teams, per Bur­row. It be­gins with what Bur­row refers to as “a nec­es­sary com­po­nent for an ef­fec­tive RBM”—a risk as­sess­ment, fol­lowed by a “well-ar­tic­u­lat­ed, clean, crisp clear, ap­pro­pri­ate pro­to­col based on that risk as­sess­ment.” The risk-based mon­i­tor­ing plan can then be built on an ap­pro­pri­ate risk as­sess­ment to be ef­fec­tive.

Bur­row placed em­pha­sis on in­clud­ing a plan that spec­i­fies the in­tent of an RBM sys­tem as the FDA would not oth­er­wise con­sid­er it to be “true RBM.” No plan could re­sult in ap­pli­ca­tion de­lays fol­low­ing com­plete re­sponse let­ters or re­quests for ad­di­tion­al in­for­ma­tion, among oth­er reg­u­la­to­ry ac­tions at the agency’s dis­pos­al. De­lays cost time and time is mon­ey, Bur­row not­ed, high­light­ing an analy­sis OSI con­duct­ed of 334 clin­i­cal in­ves­ti­ga­tion sum­maries (CISs) over a three-year pe­ri­od. A CSI pro­vides rec­om­men­da­tions to the FDA’s Of­fice of New Drugs.

The analy­sis un­der­scored the im­pact on re­view times by sep­a­rat­ing OSI rec­om­men­da­tions in­to two buck­ets, with pas­sive rec­om­men­da­tions be­ing those that con­clude the da­ta are re­li­able in sup­port of the sub­mit­ted ap­pli­ca­tion and ac­tive rec­om­men­da­tions be­ing those that pro­long re­views. OSI found that 62 out of 334 (19%) had at least one ac­tive rec­om­men­da­tion, most of which were dri­ven by no ac­tion in­di­cat­ed in­spec­tions and vol­un­tary ac­tion in­di­cat­ed in­spec­tions. The re­sults con­verse­ly meant that RBM was ef­fec­tive for most (81%).

Bur­row ex­plained that a spon­sor who claims to have used RBM may be at adds with what the FDA be­lieves to be RBM, which is a chal­lenge for the agency to as­sess and track RBM out­comes. But in “some in­stances where we have seen true RBM be im­ple­ment­ed, we have seen a great cor­re­la­tion be­tween the is­sues that were iden­ti­fied in the risk-based mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem and the is­sues we see in the ap­pli­ca­tion re­view on the back end.”

EMA Sci­en­tif­ic Ad­min­is­tra­tor Camelia Mi­haes­cu al­so stressed that a RBM plan should be based on the da­ta of the risk as­sess­ment as well as be tri­al-spe­cif­ic. Mi­haes­cu fo­cused more heav­i­ly on the pair­ing of a risk as­sess­ment with a mit­i­ga­tion plan. “There should al­ways be a con­nec­tion be­tween a mon­i­tor­ing plan and a risk as­sess­ment and mit­i­ga­tion plan,” she said. “Risk adap­ta­tion al­lows a shift in fo­cus from the cor­rect­ness of in­di­vid­ual da­ta points to try and re­solve re­li­a­bil­i­ty, which, of course, is the ba­sis for reg­u­la­to­ry de­ci­sion-mak­ing.”

Mi­haes­cu fur­ther ex­plained that the EMA con­sid­ers RBM in clin­i­cal tri­als to be an ef­fec­tive tool for ad­dress­ing ar­eas of risk, whether high or low, ear­ly in and through­out the drug de­vel­op­ment process and thus al­low the spon­sor to be bet­ter po­si­tioned when seek­ing to sub­mit an ap­pli­ca­tion and bring a new prod­uct to the mar­ket.

The slight de­vi­a­tions in how the FDA ver­sus the EMA ap­proach RBM should not be a de­ter­rent to RBM adop­tion be­cause reg­u­la­tors share the same in­ter­est as in­dus­try to have an ab­sence of er­rors that mat­ter, ac­cord­ing to Bur­row. Both the FDA and the EMA view RBM, if used cor­rect­ly, and qual­i­ty as two sides of the same coin.

Im­prov­ing the Im­ple­men­ta­tion of RBM Ap­proach­es


RAPS: 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.

So­cial im­age: Shut­ter­stock

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 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Deborah Dunsire. Lundbeck

UP­DAT­ED: Deb­o­rah Dun­sire is pay­ing $2B for a chance to leap di­rect­ly in­to a block­buster show­down with a few of the world's biggest phar­ma gi­ants

A year after taking the reins as CEO of Lundbeck, Deborah Dunsire is making a bold bid to beef up the Danish biotech’s portfolio of drugs in what will likely be a direct leap into an intense rivalry with a group of giants now carving up a growing market for new migraine drugs.

Bright and early European time Monday morning the company announced that it will pay up to about $2 billion to buy Alder, a little biotech that is far along the path in developing a quarterly IV formulation of a CGRP drug aimed at cutting back the number of crippling migraines patients experience each month. In a followup call, Dunsire also noted that the company will likely need 200 to 250 reps for this marketing task on both sides of the Atlantic. And analysts were quick to note that the dealmaking at Lundbeck isn’t done, with another $2 billion to $3 billion available for more deals to beef up the pipeline.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

San Diego cou­ple charged with steal­ing trade se­crets, open­ing Chi­nese biotech as DOJ crack­down con­tin­ues

A San Diego couple has been charged with stealing trade secrets from a US hospital and opening a business based off those secrets in China as the controversial industry-wide crackdown on alleged corporate espionage continues. On the same day, the Department of Justice announced they had arrested Beijing representative Zhongsan Liu for allegedly trying to obtain research visas for government recruiters.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ 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.

It’s fi­nal­ly over: Bio­gen, Ei­sai scrap big Alzheimer’s PhI­I­Is af­ter a pre­dictable BACE cat­a­stro­phe rais­es safe­ty fears

Months after analysts and investors called on Biogen and Eisai to scrap their BACE drug for Alzheimer’s and move on in the wake of a string of late-stage failures and rising safety fears, the partners have called it quits. And they said they were dropping the drug — elenbecestat — after the independent monitoring board raised concerns about…safety.

We don’t know exactly what researchers found in this latest catastrophe, but the companies noted in their release that investigators had determined that the drug was flunking the risk/benefit analysis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Bio­gen pulls the plug on prized IPF drug from $562M+ Stromedix buy­out

One of Biogen’s attempts to branch out has flopped as the biotech scraps a mid-stage program for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Warts for the win: Aclar­is' lead drug clears piv­otal study

Aclaris Therapeutics has found a way to get rid of the warts and all.

The company — which earlier this month decided to focus on its arsenal of kinase inhibitors — on Monday unveiled positive data from a pivotal study testing its lead experimental drug for use in common warts.

The drug, A-101, was tested in a 502-patient study called THWART-2 — patients enrolled had one to six warts before qualifying for the trial. Patients either self-administered A-101 topical solution or a vehicle twice a week over a two-month period. A higher proportion of patients on the drug (a potent hydrogen peroxide topical solution) saw their warts disappear at day 60, versus the vehicle (p<0.0001) — meeting the main goal of the study.  Each secondary endpoint also emerged in favor of A-101, the company said.

Charles Nichols, LSU School of Medicine

Could psy­che­delics tack­le the obe­si­ty cri­sis? A long­time re­searcher in the field says his lat­est mouse study sug­gests po­ten­tial

Psychedelics have experienced a renaissance in recent years amid a torrent of preclinical and clinical research suggesting it might provide a path to treat mood disorders conventional remedies have only scraped at. Now a preclinical trial from a young biotech suggests at least one psychedelic compound has effects beyond the mind, and — if you believe the still very, very early hype — could provide the first single remedy for some of the main complications of obesity.

Ac­celeron drops a de­vel­op­ment pro­gram as #2 drug fails to spark func­tion­al ben­e­fits in pa­tients with a rare neu­ro­mus­cu­lar ail­ment

Acceleron is scrapping a muscular dystrophy development program underway for its number 2 drug in the pipeline after pouring over some failed mid-stage secondary data.

Gone is the ACE-083 project in patients with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy. Their drug hit the primary endpoint on building muscle but flopped on key secondaries for functional improvements in patients, which execs felt was vital to the drug’s success.