FDA un­veils guid­ance for Covid-19 tri­als

The FDA on Wednes­day is­sued new fi­nal guid­ance to help spon­sors as­sure the safe­ty of tri­al par­tic­i­pants, main­tain com­pli­ance with good clin­i­cal prac­tice (GCP) and min­i­mize the risks to tri­al in­tegri­ty dur­ing the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic.

The guid­ance comes as the Na­tion­al In­sti­tutes of Health last week ini­ti­at­ed the first Covid-19 vac­cine Phase 1 tri­al in Seat­tle. Sanofi and Re­gen­eron Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals al­so an­nounced on Mon­day they have start­ed a Phase 2/3 tri­al at med­ical cen­ters in New York eval­u­at­ing the IL-6 tar­get­ed Kevzara (sar­ilum­ab) in pa­tients hos­pi­tal­ized with se­vere Covid-19.

In ad­di­tion, Gilead has ini­ti­at­ed two Phase 3 stud­ies at sites across Asia to eval­u­ate the safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy of the an­tivi­ral remde­sivir in adults di­ag­nosed with Covid-19, as well as in Ne­bras­ka, while Eu­sa Phar­ma said Wednes­day that it ini­ti­at­ed a study at a hos­pi­tal in Berg­amo, Italy for sil­tux­imab, an­oth­er IL-6 tar­get­ed mon­o­clon­al an­ti­body, for the treat­ment of pa­tients with Covid-19 who have de­vel­oped se­ri­ous res­pi­ra­to­ry com­pli­ca­tions.

FDA Guid­ance De­tails

While rec­og­niz­ing that pro­to­col mod­i­fi­ca­tions may be re­quired, and that there may be un­avoid­able pro­to­col de­vi­a­tions due to Covid-19 ill­ness and/or Covid-19 con­trol mea­sures, FDA urges spon­sors and clin­i­cal in­ves­ti­ga­tors to en­gage with In­sti­tu­tion­al Re­view Boards (IRBs)/In­de­pen­dent Ethics Com­mit­tees (IECs) “as ear­ly as pos­si­ble when ur­gent or emer­gent changes to the pro­to­col or in­formed con­sent are an­tic­i­pat­ed as a re­sult of COVID-19.”

But FDA al­so says that such changes to the pro­to­col or in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al plan to min­i­mize or elim­i­nate im­me­di­ate haz­ards or to pro­tect the life and well-be­ing of re­search par­tic­i­pants (e.g., to lim­it ex­po­sure to Covid-19) “may be im­ple­ment­ed with­out IRB ap­proval or be­fore fil­ing an amend­ment to the IND or IDE, but are re­quired to be re­port­ed af­ter­wards.”

David Bo­rasky, VP of IRB Com­pli­ance at WCG, said in a we­bi­nar on Covid-19 tri­als on Wednes­day that IRBs want to know about changes as soon as pos­si­ble and hope that they’ll be re­port­ed with­in five days, but they un­der­stand the cir­cum­stances.

He added that IRBs should not be a road­block to mak­ing changes that are es­sen­tial to main­tain­ing re­search that is eth­i­cal­ly ap­pro­pri­ate, max­i­mizes the safe­ty of study par­tic­i­pants and re­search teams, sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly valid and com­pli­ant with the reg­u­la­tions.

As far as ef­fi­ca­cy as­sess­ments, FDA’s guid­ance “rec­om­mends con­sul­ta­tion with the ap­pro­pri­ate re­view di­vi­sion re­gard­ing pro­to­col mod­i­fi­ca­tions for the col­lec­tion of ef­fi­ca­cy end­points, such as use of vir­tu­al as­sess­ments, de­lays in as­sess­ments, and al­ter­na­tive col­lec­tion of re­search-spe­cif­ic spec­i­mens, if fea­si­ble. For in­di­vid­ual in­stances where ef­fi­ca­cy end­points are not col­lect­ed, the rea­sons for fail­ing to ob­tain the ef­fi­ca­cy as­sess­ment should be doc­u­ment­ed (e.g., iden­ti­fy­ing the spe­cif­ic lim­i­ta­tion im­posed by COVID-19 lead­ing to the in­abil­i­ty to per­form the pro­to­col-spec­i­fied as­sess­ment).”

And pri­or to lock­ing the data­base, the 9-page guid­ance says spon­sors should use its sta­tis­ti­cal analy­sis plan to ad­dress how pro­to­col de­vi­a­tions re­lat­ed to Covid-19 will be han­dled for the pre­spec­i­fied analy­ses.

In ad­di­tion, the guid­ance adds that spon­sors and clin­i­cal in­ves­ti­ga­tors should doc­u­ment how Covid-19-re­lat­ed re­stric­tions led to changes in study con­duct and the du­ra­tion of those changes, as well as in­di­cat­ing which tri­al par­tic­i­pants were im­pact­ed and how those tri­al par­tic­i­pants were im­pact­ed.

“Spon­sors, in con­sul­ta­tion with clin­i­cal in­ves­ti­ga­tors and, may de­ter­mine that the pro­tec­tion of a par­tic­i­pant’s safe­ty, wel­fare, and rights is best served by con­tin­u­ing a study par­tic­i­pant in the tri­al as per the pro­to­col or by dis­con­tin­u­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion or use of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al prod­uct or even par­tic­i­pa­tion in the tri­al. Such de­ci­sions will de­pend on spe­cif­ic cir­cum­stances, in­clud­ing the na­ture of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al prod­uct, the abil­i­ty to con­duct ap­pro­pri­ate safe­ty mon­i­tor­ing, the po­ten­tial im­pact on the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al prod­uct sup­ply chain, and the na­ture of the dis­ease un­der study in the tri­al,” the guid­ance adds.

Dif­fi­cul­ties in get­ting prospec­tive pa­tients to tri­al sites al­so mean that spon­sors should eval­u­ate whether al­ter­na­tive meth­ods for safe­ty as­sess­ments (e.g., phone con­tact, vir­tu­al vis­it, al­ter­na­tive lo­ca­tion for as­sess­ment, in­clud­ing lo­cal labs or imag­ing cen­ters) could be im­ple­ment­ed when nec­es­sary and fea­si­ble, and would be suf­fi­cient to as­sure the safe­ty of tri­al par­tic­i­pants, FDA says.

“COVID-19 screen­ing pro­ce­dures that may be man­dat­ed by the health care sys­tem in which a clin­i­cal tri­al is be­ing con­duct­ed do not need to be re­port­ed as an amend­ment to the pro­to­col even if done dur­ing clin­i­cal study vis­its un­less the spon­sor is in­cor­po­rat­ing the da­ta col­lect­ed as part of a new re­search ob­jec­tive,” the guid­ance adds.

For a look at all End­points News coro­n­avirus sto­ries, check out our spe­cial news chan­nel.

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.


Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

A small, ob­scure biotech just won big with their IPO. In this mar­ket. Are you kid­ding me?

How could a small, largely unknown biotech that emerged from stealth mode just months ago with early-stage cancer programs jump onto Wall Street in the middle of a Category 6 financial hurricane and sail through with a $165 million IPO?

And what does that mean for the rest of the industry waiting to see just how much damage global lockdowns will wreak on clinical development?

The biotech is a company called Zentalis. The crew there nabbed an $85 million crossover round late last year — notably waiting 5 years before waving the numbers around to attract attention, according to my read of a FierceBiotech story. Perceptive joined in, but the syndicate was not in general the kind of marquee affair that gets tongues wagging.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Bob Nelsen at the Milken Institute Global Conference on April 29, 2019 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Michael Kovac/Getty Images)

ARCH chief Bob Nelsen has $1.5B to prove 2 sim­ple points: ‘We’re in the most in­no­v­a­tive time ever’ and in­vestors are stay­ing

ARCH co-founder and managing director Bob Nelsen has a well known yen for the home run swing, betting big on potentially transformative meds and tech and the biotech teams he helps bring together. He thrives and bleeds on the cutting edge. And now Nelsen and the ARCH group have debuted 2 big funds to prove that this is the time for the best of biotech to shine — deadly pandemic be damned.

Two new funds, ARCH Venture Fund X and ARCH Venture Fund X Overage, gathered a combined $1.46 billion. And that’s a record. ARCH Venture Fund IX and ARCH Venture Fund IX Overage closed in 2016 with a combined $1.1 billion. ARCH Venture Fund VIII and ARCH Venture Fund VIII Overage closed in 2014 with a combined $560 million.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 77,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Lil­ly Asia Ven­tures co-leads $100M+ round for Chi­nese biotech and its late-stage lu­pus drug

Can a Chinese biotech deliver the first new lupus drug in decades? A high-profile group of VCs are betting on it.

Lilly Asia Ventures and Lake Bleu Capital are the co-headliners for RemeGen’s latest raise, which brought in more than $100 million. Hudson Bay Capital and Vivo Capital — which, like LAV, also invested in a pre-IPO round for Legend Biotech unveiled today — chimed in, as did Janchor Partners and OrbiMed.

GSK's asth­ma bi­o­log­ic Nu­cala is one step clos­er to ap­proval in key chron­ic rhi­nos­i­nusi­tis pop­u­la­tion

Months after GSK’s Nucala cleared in a pivotal rare blood disorder study, the asthma biologic has scored in a late-stage trial in chronic rhinosinusitis patients with nasal polyps.

The British drugmaker on Friday disclosed data from the SYNAPSE study, which tested Nucala (also known as mepolizumab) against a placebo on top of standard-of-care in more than 400 patients, all of whom had a history of previous surgery (approximately one in three had ≥3 surgeries) and required surgery due to severe symptoms and bigger polyps.

Servi­er bags an an­ti­body spe­cial­ist in its lat­est on­col­o­gy M&A deal with plans to add the plat­form tech

Whatever Servier learned about Symphogen during their 2-year development alliance must have significantly whetted their appetite for an acquisition.

Paris-based Servier announced Friday that it has struck a deal to buy out the antibody expert. The acquisition comes 2 years after Servier acquired Shire’s cancer business for $2.4 billion. They’ve been working with Symphogen on a slate of programs, including some favs – PD-1, LAG3 and TIM3 — where they are looking to differentiate themselves from the more prominent drugs in these niches.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 77,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Aaron Royston, venBio

In­vest­ing in the time of coro­n­avirus: the good, the bad and the hope­ful, as biotech VC firms close funds worth $3B

Apart from disrupting biopharma R&D and regulatory timelines, the coronavirus pandemic has inevitably ravaged financial markets and eroded investor risk appetite. Investing in the time of coronavirus feels reckless, but if biotech venture funds are any indication, the time is ripe.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 77,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

GSK vac­cine chief heads for AIDS vac­cine ini­tia­tive; Pfiz­er en­lists Sue Desmond-Hell­mann to its board of di­rec­tors

→ Rip Ballou, who until very recently led vaccine research and development at GlaxoSmithKline, is joining the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) to lead its USAID-funded ADVANCE program. The program uses a network of researchers and institutions in Africa to help develop a vaccine for HIV. Ballou had worked at GSK since 2010 and has led global vaccine R&D since 2015. Prior to that he held posts at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a different post at GSK, Medimmune, and Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.  IAVI is led by Mark Feinberg, the former CSO of Merck Vaccines. 

Ahead of US IPO, Leg­end Biotech adds $150M, top-tier in­vestors to back CAR-T pipeline

Last month Nanjing Legend Biotech revealed that it sees, and was quietly planning for, a future as a public company in the US, separate but still tied to its former parent, Chinese CRO GenScript. It’s evidently a vision that enticed investors, drawing marquee names for a pre-IPO round.

The Series A fetched a whopping $150.5 million from Hudson Bay Capital Management, Lilly Asia Ventures, Vivo Capital, RA Capital Management and JJDC, the venture arm of J&J. The pharma giant has helped fund Legend’s CAR-T work with the $350 million upfront payment it handed over to partner on the lead BCMA program.

Drug dis­cov­ery in the age of coro­n­avirus

Developing new drugs is incredibly hard. That’s why, despite superhuman efforts from the industry, we’re still looking at 12-18 months minimum before we can realistically hope for a vaccine for Covid-19, and probably months before there’s a proven viable drug treatment.

But our increasing ability to begin to industrialize the drug discovery and development process through an engineering approach means that we have more hope for speeding up this process than ever before — and not just to defeat coronavirus, but to benefit the development of all new medicines in the future.