FDA up­dates Covid-19 clin­i­cal tri­als guid­ance to ad­dress se­ri­ous ad­verse events

The FDA last week up­dat­ed its guid­ance on con­duct­ing clin­i­cal tri­als amid the coro­n­avirus dis­ease pan­dem­ic to ad­dress how and when spon­sors and ap­pli­ca­tion hold­ers should re­port se­ri­ous ad­verse events (SAE).

The lat­est up­date to the guid­ance comes just days af­ter FDA added new ques­tions and an­swers to the doc­u­ment ad­dress­ing the use of al­ter­nate lab­o­ra­to­ry or imag­ing cen­ters, video con­fer­enc­ing and post­mar­ket­ing stud­ies.

Se­ri­ous ad­verse events

The up­dat­ed guid­ance in­cludes two new ques­tions and an­swers on se­ri­ous ad­verse event re­port­ing re­quire­ments in dif­fer­ent cir­cum­stances.

The first ques­tion ad­dress­es sit­u­a­tions where a com­pa­ny study­ing an al­ready ap­proved drug to treat COVID-19 un­der an in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al new drug ap­pli­ca­tion (IND) re­ceives a spon­ta­neous re­port of a se­ri­ous ad­verse event stem­ming from the prod­uct’s off-la­bel use in clin­i­cal prac­tice to treat Covid-19.

FDA ex­plains that se­ri­ous ad­verse events that oc­cur in clin­i­cal prac­tice “must be re­port­ed in ac­cor­dance with the ap­plic­a­ble post-mar­ket­ing re­port­ing re­quire­ments,” whether or not the ad­verse event is in­clud­ed in la­bel­ing to the ap­pro­pri­ate FDA data­base, the Vac­cine Ad­verse Event Re­port­ing Sys­tem (VAERS) for vac­cines and the FDA Ad­verse Event Re­port­ing Sys­tem (FAERS) for drugs and bi­o­log­ics.

When the se­ri­ous ad­verse event oc­curs dur­ing a clin­i­cal tri­al, FDA says the event “must be re­port­ed as an IND safe­ty re­port … if they are un­ex­pect­ed and the spon­sor de­ter­mines that there is a rea­son­able pos­si­bil­i­ty that the drug caused the SAE.”

“Re­gard­less of whether an SAE oc­curs in the course of clin­i­cal prac­tice or dur­ing a clin­i­cal tri­al, and re­gard­less of where it is first re­port­ed, [a new drug ap­pli­ca­tion or bi­o­log­ics li­cense ap­pli­ca­tion] hold­er who is al­so the spon­sor of an IND in­ves­ti­gat­ing the same drug for COVID-19 is re­spon­si­ble for mon­i­tor­ing the safe­ty of its drug and eval­u­at­ing all ac­cu­mu­lat­ing safe­ty da­ta,” FDA writes, adding that if that da­ta in­di­cat­ed there may be a new se­ri­ous risk as­so­ci­at­ed with the drug that an IND safe­ty re­port must be filed.

In the sec­ond ques­tion, FDA ex­plains how spon­sors study­ing drugs for non-Covid-19 in­di­ca­tions should han­dle re­port­ing se­ri­ous ad­verse events as­so­ci­at­ed with Covid-19 dur­ing the tri­al.

FDA again ex­plains that spon­sors are re­quired to re­port any se­ri­ous ad­verse events that are un­ex­pect­ed and could rea­son­ably have been caused by the drug.

As such, FDA says that spon­sors must de­ter­mine whether the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al drug “might be causal­ly re­lat­ed to a SAE as­so­ci­at­ed with COVID-19,” though the agency ac­knowl­edges that do­ing so “like­ly re­quires more than sin­gle or even a few cas­es.”

For ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als, FDA says spon­sors should com­pare the rate of ob­served se­ri­ous ad­verse events in par­tic­i­pants with Covid-19 in the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al to those in the con­trol arm of the study. Be­cause such as­sess­ments would in­volve un­blind­ed da­ta, FDA says they should on­ly be done by a da­ta mon­i­tor­ing com­mit­tee or a “fire­walled” and in­de­pen­dent spe­cial­ly con­sti­tut­ed safe­ty com­mit­tee.

For non­ran­dom­ized stud­ies, FDA says spon­sors should com­pare the rate of se­ri­ous ad­verse events and mor­tal­i­ty for tri­al par­tic­i­pants di­ag­nosed with Covid-19 to a sim­i­lar ex­ter­nal pop­u­la­tion.

“If the dif­fer­ence in SAEs across treat­ment arms or com­pared to an ex­ter­nal pop­u­la­tion sug­gests a causal re­la­tion­ship be­tween the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al prod­uct and the SAEs in sub­jects di­ag­nosed with COVID-19, this find­ing must be sub­mit­ted to FDA as an IND safe­ty re­port,” FDA writes.

FDA

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.

5AM Ven­tures: Fu­el­ing the Next Gen­er­a­tion of In­no­va­tors

By RBC Capital Markets
With Andy Schwab, Co-Founder and Managing Partner at 5AM Ventures

Key Points

Prescription Digital Therapeutics, cell therapy technologies, and in silico medicines will be a vital part of future treatment modalities.
Unlocking the potential of the microbiome could be the missing link to better disease diagnosis.
Growing links between academia, industry, and venture capital are spinning out more innovative biotech companies.
Biotech is now seen by investors as a growth space as well as a safe haven, fuelling the recent IPO boom.

Biohaven CEO Vlad Coric (Photo Credit: Andrew Venditti)

Pssst: That big Bio­haven Alzheimer's study? It was a bust. Even the sub­group analy­sis ex­ecs tout­ed was a flop

You know it’s bad when a biopharma player plucks out a subgroup analysis for a positive take — even though it was way off the statistical mark for success, like everything else.

So it was for Biohaven $BHVN on MLK Monday, as the biotech reported on the holiday that their Phase II/III Alzheimer’s study for troriluzole flunked both co-primary endpoints as well as a key biomarker analysis.

The drug — a revised version of the ALS drug riluzole designed to regulate glutamate — did not “statistically differentiate” from placebo on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale 11 (ADAS-cog) and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).  The “hippocampal volume” assessment by MRI also failed to distinguish itself from placebo for all patients fitting the mild-to-moderate disease profile they had established for the study.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Janet Woodcock and Joshua Sharfstein (AP, Images)

Poll: Should Joshua Sharf­stein or Janet Wood­cock lead the FDA from here?

It’s time for a new FDA commissioner to come on board, a rite of passage for Joe Biden’s administration that should help seal the new president’s rep on seeking out the experts to lead the government over the next 4 years.

As of now, the competition for the top job appears to have narrowed down to 2 people: The longtime CDER chief Janet Woodcock and Joshua Sharfstein, the former principal deputy at the FDA under Peggy Hamburg. Both were appointed by Barack Obama.

As­traZeneca keeps the ball rolling on Dai­ichi-part­nered En­her­tu, pick­ing up 2nd in­di­ca­tion in gas­tric can­cer

AstraZeneca’s big gamble on Daiichi Sankyo’s antibody-drug conjugate Enhertu has already paid off with a big approval in breast cancer more than a year ago. But the partners have big plans for their blockbuster in the making, and a new nod in gastric cancer will raise their spirits even higher.

The FDA on Friday approved Enhertu to treat locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in patients who have previously undergone at least one round of treatment with a Herceptin-based regimen, AstraZeneca said in a release.

Janet Woodcock (AP Images)

Janet Wood­cock is in the run­ning for FDA com­mis­sion­er — what does that mean for the agen­cy's fu­ture?

Just a day after reports emerged that Janet Woodcock will serve as interim chief of the FDA, word has gotten out that she is also in the running for the permanent job.

The decision, as the initial wave of reactions suggest, could have dramatic implications for where the agency is headed in the next four years — if not beyond.

Woodcock, the longtime CDER director, is being vetted alongside former FDA principal deputy commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, Bloomberg reported. Already tapped as acting head of the agency, she’s set to take over from Stephen Hahn right after Biden’s inauguration next week.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Dan Skovronsky, Eli Lilly CSO (Lilly via Facebook)

Eli Lil­ly tees up dis­cov­ery pact worth more than $1.6B with Merus for T cell-fo­cused bis­pe­cif­ic an­ti­bod­ies

Under science chief Dan Skovronsky, Eli Lilly has taken some big swings at next-gen therapies, including trying to find the next big thing in oncology. Now, after one early failure in the field, Lilly is going back to the bispecific antibody well with a new deal with a Dutch biotech.

Lilly will pay $40 million upfront with an additional $20 million equity stake in Merus NV to identify and develop three bispecific antibodies looking to engage the CD3 antigen on T cells and redirect immune cells, the Indianapolis pharma giant said Tuesday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Andrew Cuomo, AP

Covid-19 roundup: Con­va­les­cent plas­ma flops in UK tri­al; New York Gov. An­drew Cuo­mo seeks to pur­chase vac­cines di­rect­ly from Pfiz­er

The UK’s RECOVERY trial is no longer recruiting patients for the convalescent plasma arm after an independent data monitoring committee found no significant improvement in mortality — another nail in the coffin for President Donald Trump’s so-called “historic breakthrough” treatment.

The RECOVERY trial spans several potential Covid-19 treatments, including  Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and the anti-inflammatories colchicine and tocilizumab. But convalescent plasma missed its primary endpoint in a preliminary analysis, and the DMC “saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any pre-specified subgroup,” according to a report by the trial’s co-chairs, Peter Horby and Martin Landray.

Andrew Allen (Gritstone)

As coro­n­avirus vari­ants trig­ger new alarms, the NIH is putting an un­der-the-radar ‘next-gen’ vac­cine in­to PhI

Over the past year, the world has been transfixed by the development of new vaccines to fight SARS-CoV-2. In a frenzy of activity, the new mRNA approach has delivered pioneering emergency approvals in record time. And with some setbacks, the more traditional big players are coming along with added jabs as the most affluent nations in the world begin to vaccinate large portions of their populations.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Janet Woodcock (AP Images)

Janet Wood­cock to be act­ing FDA com­mis­sion­er while Biden team fi­nal­izes nom­i­nee — re­ports

Janet Woodcock is set to be the most powerful person at the FDA in less than a week.

The veteran regulator and longtime director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has been tapped as acting commissioner of the FDA, according to reports by BioCentury’s Steve Usdin and Pink Sheet’s Sarah Karlin-Smith.

The appointment was requested by the incoming Biden team, Karlin-Smith added, as they sort out the nomination of a permanent successor to Stephen Hahn — whose one-year tenure has been defined by Covid-19.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.