FDA un­veils 5 guid­ances on broad­en­ing can­cer clin­i­cal tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty

As part of a push to trans­form clin­i­cal tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria that have been ac­cept­ed over time with­out a clear sci­en­tif­ic or clin­i­cal ra­tio­nale, the FDA on Tues­day pub­lished four draft guid­ance doc­u­ments on can­cer clin­i­cal tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria and one fi­nal guid­ance on in­clud­ing ado­les­cents in adult on­col­o­gy tri­als.

The four drafts, de­vel­oped by the FDA with in­put from the Amer­i­can So­ci­ety of Clin­i­cal On­col­o­gy and Friends of Can­cer Re­search, fo­cus on min­i­mum age for pe­di­atric pa­tients; pa­tients with HIV, he­pati­tis B or C virus­es; pa­tients with or­gan dys­func­tion or pri­or or cur­rent ma­lig­nan­cies; and pa­tients with brain metas­tases.

“Over­ly re­stric­tive el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria may slow pa­tient ac­cru­al, lim­it pa­tients’ ac­cess to clin­i­cal tri­als and lead to tri­al re­sults that don’t ful­ly rep­re­sent treat­ment ef­fects in the pa­tient pop­u­la­tion that will ul­ti­mate­ly re­ceive the drug,” FDA Com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb said, not­ing how the draft guid­ances of­fer new rec­om­men­da­tions for broad­en­ing can­cer tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria.

Min­i­mum Age for Pe­di­atric Pa­tients

This sev­en-page draft guid­ance ex­plains how spon­sors seek­ing to in­clude pe­di­atric pa­tient pop­u­la­tions in adult can­cer tri­als should eval­u­ate pe­di­atric for­mu­la­tions, tak­ing in­to ac­count the age, size, phys­i­o­log­ic con­di­tion and the treat­ment needs of pe­di­atric pa­tients.

The draft notes the types of ev­i­dence that could sup­port in­clu­sion of pa­tients from two years of age to un­der age twelve, clar­i­fy­ing that chil­dren un­der the age of two “may be par­tic­u­lar­ly vul­ner­a­ble to ex­pect­ed and unan­tic­i­pat­ed tox­i­c­i­ty due to de­vel­op­men­tal con­cerns and age-de­pen­dent mat­u­ra­tion of meta­bol­ic en­zyme sys­tems and or­gan func­tion, chil­dren < 2 years should not be in­clud­ed in adult can­cer tri­als. In rare in­stances, in­fants be­yond the neona­tal pe­ri­od may be ap­pro­pri­ate can­di­dates for se­lect new drugs. How­ev­er, en­roll­ment of chil­dren < 2 years of age is best re­served for ex­cep­tion­al cas­es and on­ly af­ter con­sul­ta­tion with the FDA.”

In ad­di­tion, the draft fea­tures po­ten­tial ways to in­clude pe­di­atric pa­tients in ear­ly phase tri­als af­ter a suf­fi­cient num­ber of adult pa­tients have been eval­u­at­ed to pro­vide ad­e­quate safe­ty and tox­i­c­i­ty da­ta.

For late-phase tri­als, the draft says: “The min­i­mum age of el­i­gi­bil­i­ty spec­i­fied in late-phase tri­als should be tai­lored to the bi­ol­o­gy of the dis­ease un­der study, the sci­en­tif­ic ob­jec­tives of the tri­al, and the ex­ist­ing da­ta re­gard­ing the mech­a­nism of ac­tion and safe­ty pro­file of the drug.”

Pa­tients with HIV, He­pati­tis B Virus or He­pati­tis C Virus In­fec­tions

This eight-page draft guid­ance ex­plains how ex­pand­ing can­cer clin­i­cal tri­al el­i­gi­bil­i­ty to be more in­clu­sive of pa­tients with HIV, HBV, or HCV in­fec­tions “is jus­ti­fied in many cas­es, and may ac­cel­er­ate the de­vel­op­ment of ef­fec­tive ther­a­pies in can­cer pa­tients with these chron­ic in­fec­tions.”

The rec­om­men­da­tions in the draft for el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria for pa­tients with can­cer and con­cur­rent HIV in­fec­tion “are fo­cused on eval­u­a­tion of im­mune func­tion and HIV ther­a­py,” while the rec­om­men­da­tions for those “with can­cer who have ev­i­dence of chron­ic HBV or with cur­rent or his­to­ry of HCV are fo­cused on liv­er-re­lat­ed lab­o­ra­to­ries and HBV/HCV ther­a­py.”

Or­gan Dys­func­tion or Pri­or or Con­cur­rent Ma­lig­nan­cies

This six-page draft guid­ance fea­tures rec­om­men­da­tions for el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria for pa­tients with or­gan dys­func­tion in can­cer clin­i­cal tri­als, fo­cus­ing on re­nal func­tion, car­diac func­tion and he­pat­ic func­tion, in ad­di­tion to rec­om­men­da­tions for el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria for pa­tients with can­cer who have a his­to­ry of pri­or or con­cur­rent sec­ond pri­ma­ry ma­lig­nan­cies.

“By ex­clud­ing in­di­vid­u­als from can­cer clin­i­cal tri­als who have ma­jor or­gan dys­func­tion or pre­vi­ous or con­cur­rent can­cers, tri­al re­cruit­ment fa­vors younger pa­tients, which may not be ful­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the pop­u­la­tion for whom the drug will be in­di­cat­ed,” the FDA ex­plains.

“For ex­am­ple, in ini­tial dose find­ing or pre­lim­i­nary ac­tiv­i­ty-es­ti­mat­ing or proof-of-con­cept stud­ies, pa­tients with a his­to­ry of pri­or or con­cur­rent sec­ond pri­ma­ry ma­lig­nan­cies should not be ex­clud­ed,” the draft says.

Brain Metas­tases

As about 70,000 pa­tients liv­ing with can­cer in the US are di­ag­nosed with brain metas­tases, this six-page draft guid­ance ex­plains how such pa­tients should be in­clud­ed in clin­i­cal tri­als to cre­ate a bet­ter un­der­stand­ing of the ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty pro­file of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al drug while main­tain­ing pa­tient safe­ty.

“The in­ci­dence of brain metas­tases is in­creas­ing in pa­tients with cer­tain ma­lig­nan­cies such as melanoma, lung can­cer, and breast can­cer. How­ev­er, pa­tients with brain metas­tases have his­tor­i­cal­ly been ex­clud­ed from clin­i­cal tri­als due to con­cerns of poor func­tion­al sta­tus, short­ened life ex­pectan­cy, or in­creased risk of tox­i­c­i­ty,” the guid­ance says.

It al­so ex­plains how pa­tients with can­cers that metas­ta­size to the brain should be in­clud­ed in ear­ly phase tri­als “ei­ther in sep­a­rate co­horts or in co­horts with planned sub­set analy­ses to as­sess pre­lim­i­nary ef­fi­ca­cy and tox­i­c­i­ty in pa­tients with brain metas­tases. In cas­es where there is a strong ra­tio­nale for ex­clu­sion, the ra­tio­nale should be de­scribed in the tri­al pro­to­col.”

In­clud­ing Ado­les­cent Pa­tients in Adult On­col­o­gy Clin­i­cal Tri­als

This four-page fi­nal guid­ance pro­vides rec­om­men­da­tions for the ap­pro­pri­ate in­clu­sion cri­te­ria, dos­ing and phar­ma­co­ki­net­ic (PK) eval­u­a­tions, safe­ty mon­i­tor­ing, and eth­i­cal re­quire­ments for en­rolling ado­les­cent pa­tients in adult on­col­o­gy tri­als.

The FDA says that ado­les­cents should on­ly be en­rolled in first-in-hu­man or dose-es­ca­la­tion tri­als af­ter ini­tial adult PK and tox­i­c­i­ty da­ta are ob­tained. The agency al­so says that ado­les­cent pa­tients should on­ly be en­rolled in ear­ly phase tri­als when they have re­lapsed or re­frac­to­ry can­cer, or a can­cer with no cu­ra­tive stan­dard treat­ment avail­able.

As far as changes be­tween the draft and fi­nal, the FDA said: “All the pub­lic com­ments re­ceived on the draft guid­ance have been con­sid­ered and the guid­ance has been re­vised as ap­pro­pri­ate.”


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.

Bob Bradway, Amgen CEO (Scott Eisen/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Am­gen bel­lies back up to the M&A ta­ble for an­oth­er biotech buy­out, this time with a $2.5B deal for an an­ti­body play­er fo­cused on PS­MA

Five months after Amgen CEO Bob Bradway stepped up to the M&A table and acquired Five Prime for $1.9 billion, following up with the smaller Rodeo acquisition, he’s gone back in for another biotech buyout.

This time around, Amgen is paying $900 million cash while committing up to $1.6 billion in milestones to bag the privately held Teneobio, an antibody drug developer that has expertise in developing new bispecifics and multispecifics. In addition, Amgen cited Teneobio’s “T-cell engager platform, which expands on Amgen’s existing leadership position in bispecific T-cell engagers by providing a differentiated, but complementary, approach to Amgen’s current BiTE platform.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 112,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

How one start­up fore­told the neu­ro­science re­nais­sance af­ter '50 years of shit­show'

In the past couple of years, something curious has happened: Pharma and VC dollars started gushing into neuroscience research.

Biogen’s controversial new Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm has been approved on the basis of removing amyloid plaque from the brain, but the new neuro-focused pharma and biotechs have much loftier aims. Significantly curbing or even curing the most notorious disorders would prove the Holy Grail for a complex system that has tied the world’s best drug developers in knots for decades.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Ryan Watts, Denali CEO

De­nali slips as a snap­shot of ear­ly da­ta rais­es some trou­bling ques­tions on its pi­o­neer­ing blood-brain bar­ri­er neu­ro work

Denali Therapeutics had drummed up considerable hype for their blood-brain barrier technology since launching over six years ago, hype that’s only intensified in the last 14 months following the publications of a pair of papers last spring and proof of concept data earlier this year. On Sunday, the South San Francisco-based biotech gave the biopharma world the next look at in-human data for its lead candidate in Hunter syndrome.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 112,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Why is On­col­o­gy Drug De­vel­op­ment Re­search Late to the Dig­i­tal Bio­mark­ers Game?

During the recent Annual ASCO Meeting, thousands of cancer researchers and clinicians from across the globe joined together virtually to present and discuss the latest findings and breakthroughs in cancer research and care. There were more than 5000+ scientific abstracts presented during this event, yet only a handful involved the use of motion-tracking wearables to collect digital measures relating to activity, sleep, mobility, functional status, and/or quality of life. Although these results were a bit disappointing, they should come as no surprise to those of us in the wearable technology field.

Art Levinson (Calico)

Google-backed Cal­i­co dou­bles down on an­ti-ag­ing R&D pact with Ab­b­Vie as part­ners ante up $1B, start to de­tail drug tar­gets

Seven years after striking up a major R&D alliance, AbbVie and Google-backed anti-aging specialist Calico are doubling down on their work with a joint, $1 billion commitment to continuing their work together. And they’re also beginning to offer some details on where this project is taking them in the clinic.

According to their statement, each of the two players is putting up $500 million more to keep the labs humming.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 112,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Pan­el of neu­ro­science ex­perts lays out the com­pli­ca­tions with us­ing Bio­gen's new Alzheimer's drug

Treatment of early Alzheimer’s patients with Biogen’s new drug Aduhelm should closely resemble how the drug was studied in its pivotal clinical trials, according to new recommendations from a panel of neuroscience experts led by UNLV’s Jeffrey Cummings.

“Those considering aducanumab therapy should understand that the expected benefit is slowing of cognitive and functional decline; improvement of the current clinical state is not anticipated,” they wrote Tuesday in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease, noting that some of their recommendations are more specific or more restrictive than the information provided in the FDA’s prescribing information.

Busi­ness­es and schools can man­date the use of Covid-19 vac­cines un­der EUAs, DOJ says

As public and private companies stare down the reality of the Delta variant, many are now requiring that their employees or students be vaccinated against Covid-19 prior to attending school or to returning or starting a new job. Claims that such mandates are illegal or cannot be used for vaccines under emergency use authorizations have now been dismissed.

Setting the record straight, the Department of Justice on Monday called the mandates legal in a new memo, even when used for people with vaccines that remain subject to EUAs.

Ugur Sahin, BioNTech CEO (Bernd von Jutrczenka/dpa via AP Images)

BioN­Tech is spear­head­ing an mR­NA vac­cine de­vel­op­ment pro­gram for malar­ia, with a tech trans­fer planned for Africa

Flush with the success of its mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, BioNTech is now gearing up for one of the biggest challenges in vaccine development — which comes without potential profit.

The German mRNA pioneer says it plans to work on a jab for malaria, then transfer the tech to the African continent, where it will work with partners on developing the manufacturing ops needed to make this and other vaccines.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 112,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

J&J’s Rem­i­cade — the poster child for how to block biosim­i­lars — fi­nal­ly set­tles Pfiz­er suit

Biosimilars have proven time and again (although mostly in Europe) that competition works to bring down the cost of a once-pricey biologic, and can even expand its use.

J&J’s Remicade, however, has always proven to be an outlier.

Back in 2016, Pfizer won FDA approval for its infliximab biosimilar, known as Inflectra, but when the launch foundered, the company sued J&J, claiming that the company’s plan to block biosimilar competition worked incredibly well. Pfizer even went on to win FDA approval for a second infliximab biosimilar in 2017, known as Ixifi, but decided to never launch it.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 112,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.