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.

The DCT-OS: A Tech­nol­o­gy-first Op­er­at­ing Sys­tem - En­abling Clin­i­cal Tri­als

As technology-enabled clinical research becomes the new normal, an integrated decentralized clinical trial operating system can ensure quality, deliver consistency and improve the patient experience.

The increasing availability of COVID-19 vaccines has many of us looking forward to a time when everyday things return to a state of normal. Schools and teachers are returning to classrooms, offices and small businesses are reopening, and there’s a palpable sense of optimism that the often-awkward adjustments we’ve all made personally and professionally in the last year are behind us, never to return. In the world of clinical research, however, some pandemic-necessitated adjustments are proving to be more than emergency stopgap measures to ensure trial continuity — and numerous decentralized clinical trial (DCT) tools and methodologies employed within the last year are likely here to stay as part of biopharma’s new normal.

'Chang­ing the whole game of drug dis­cov­ery': Leg­endary R&D vet Roger Perl­mut­ter leaps back in­to work as a biotech CEO

Roger Perlmutter needs no introduction to anyone remotely involved in biopharma. As the R&D chief first at Amgen and then Merck, he’s built a stellar reputation and a prolific career steering new drugs toward the market for everything from cancer to infectious diseases.

But for years, he’s also held a less known title: science partner at The Column Group, where he’s regularly consulted about the various ideas the VCs had for new startups.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 104,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA ex­tends re­search agree­ment with MIT-li­censed or­gan-on-chip sys­tems

The FDA on Wednesday extended its four-year agreement with CN Bio, a developer of single- and multi-organ-on-chip systems used for drug discovery, for another three years.

CN Bio said the scope of the research performed by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has expanded to include the exploration of the company’s lung-on-a-chip system to help with the agency’s evaluation of inhaled drugs, in addition to the agency’s work on its liver model.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

In quest to meet user fee goals, FDA’s per­for­mance con­tin­ues down­ward trend

A recent update to the FDA’s running tally of how it’s meeting its user fee-related performance goals during the pandemic shows an agency that is not out of the woods yet.

The latest numbers reveal that for a second straight quarter in 2021, the FDA has met its user fee goal dates for 93% of original new drug applications, which compares with 94% and 98% for the previous two quarters in 2020, respectively.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

UP­DAT­ED: Pfiz­er hits the brakes on their piv­otal tri­al for a BC­MA/CD3 bis­pe­cif­ic on safe­ty con­cerns while FDA road­block is hold­ing up Duchenne MD PhI­II

Pfizer’s ambitious plan to take a Phase II study of its BCMA CD3-targeted bispecific antibody elranatamab (PF-06863135) and run it through to an accelerated approval has derailed.

The pharma giant said in a release this morning that they have halted enrollment for their MagnetisMM-3 study after researchers tracked three cases of peripheral neuropathy in the ongoing Phase I. They are now sharing info with the FDA as they explore the red safety flag.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 104,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Thomas Schall, ChemoCentryx CEO (file photo)

Chemo­Cen­tryx plunges as FDA rais­es ques­tions about rare dis­ease drug ahead of ad­comm

ChemoCentryx’s stock price on Wednesday was cut in half by the release of FDA briefing documents ahead of a Thursday adcomm, raising questions on the company’s clinical data to support avacopan as a treatment for adults with a rare and serious disease known as anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-vasculitis.

ANCA-associated vasculitides (AAV) affect small to medium-size blood vessels that can be fatal in less than a year if left untreated, according to FDA. Only Roche’s Rituxan is currently FDA-approved for the treatment of AAV, while glucocorticoids are approved for the broader indication of vasculitis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 104,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Re­gen­eron’s gold­en goose Eylea may stave off biosim­i­lar com­pe­ti­tion un­til 2024 or be­yond

Almost 10 years have passed since its first FDA approval and Regeneron’s macular degeneration injection Eylea continues to pile up sales to the tune of about $5 billion per year, or more than half of Regeneron’s annual revenues.

Those billions are not expected to go anywhere anytime soon thanks to competition, even as Novartis subsidiary Sandoz announced Monday that it’s beginning a Phase III trial for an Eylea biosimilar in 460 patients across 20 countries.

Cynthia Butitta (L) and Joe Jimenez

Is that an­oth­er IPO in the mak­ing? Ex-No­var­tis CEO Joe Jimenez and a lead Kite play­er take up new posts at an off-the-shelf ri­val to 2 pi­o­neer­ing drugs

Right on the heels of taking on a $160 million crossover round in a likely leap to Nasdaq, Century Therapeutics CEO Lalo Flores is now pushing ahead with the high-profile ex-Novartis chief Joe Jimenez as chairman.

Jimenez’s greatest fame at Novartis was earned for one of its weakest products, as their pioneering personalized CAR-T Kymriah won the honors for the first such drug to make it to the market. Now a host of players, including Century, are barreling in behind the frontrunners with allogeneic rivals that can be created for off-the-shelf use.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 104,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

An em­ploy­ee com­plaint at Eli Lil­ly's Branch­burg plant al­leges al­tered qual­i­ty con­trol docs amid FDA probe — re­port

Eli Lilly was one of the earliest players in the race for a Covid-19 antibody, but a series of setbacks at a New Jersey manufacturing site have set back its efforts. Now, an internal complaint reportedly claims that a director at that site knowingly fudged quality control docs right under the FDA’s nose.

An employee complaint from Eli Lilly’s manufacturing plant in Branchburg, NJ, alleged that a director altered documents handed over to FDA regulators as part of an effort to downplay serious quality control issues amid the agency’s probe at the site, Reuters reported.