Transcript
Clinical Trial Optimization:Making Every Patient Count
CAPT E. Dennis Bashaw, Pharm.D. Dir. Division of Clinical Pharmacology-3
Office of Clinical PharmacologyOffice of Translational Sciences
US Food and Drug Administration
Session 905:HOW TO IMPROVE DEVELOPMENT EFFICIENCY AND SAVE CLINICAL RESOURCE
2
• The presentation today should not beconsidered, in whole or in part as beingstatements of policy or recommendationby the US Food and Drug Administration.
• Throughout the talk, representativeexamples of commercial products will bementioned. No commercial endorsementis either implied or intended.
3
4
Outline
• The Cost of Drug Development
• Why Replicate Trials?
• Personalized Medicine
• Maximizing Value-Enrichment Approaches in Clinical Trials
• Communicate, Communicate, COLLABORATE!
• Conclusions and Closing Thoughts
5
THE COST OF DRUG DEVELOPMENT
6
Current Snapshot
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugInnovation/UCM536693.pdf
7
Lengthy Process to Reach Market
8
Updated Drug Development Cost Figures
J Health Econ. 2016 May;47:20-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.01.012
9
Need to Optimize Development is NOT a New Concern
Equivalent to 5.03 Billion Dollars
https://futureboy.us/fsp/dollar.fsp
10
WHY REPLICATE TRIALS?
11
Definition of “Substantial Evidence”
• Guidance for Industry-Providing Clinical Evidence
of Effectiveness for Human Drugs and Biological
Products
– Congress adopted the 1962 Drug Amendments, Section 505(d) of the Actuses the plural form in defining “substantial evidence” as “adequate andwell- controlled investigations, including clinical investigations.” See alsouse of “investigations” in section 505(b) of the Act, which lists thecontents of a new drug application. which included a provision requiringmanufacturers of drug products to establish a drug’s effectiveness by"substantial evidence." Substantial evidence was defined in section505(d)of the Act as “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlledinvestigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified byscientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of thedrug involved, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly beconcluded by such experts that the drug will have the effect it purports oris represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed,recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labelingthereof.”
12
The Cost of Research vs Ease of Conduct
High
Low
Single Center Randomized Trials
Low
Single Case
Reports
Cohort Studies
Case-Control Studies
Case Series
HighEase of conduct
Multi-Center Randomized Trials
Cost
This has been the traditional view, but can we develop new paradigms
of drug research to slow this trend (unlikely to reverse costs)
13
Making Every Patient Count
14
Linear vs. Iterative Process
http://www.irnd3.org/presentations/ASPCT_rare_diseases_March_11_2016.pdf
15
16
PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
17
Heterogeneity in Response to Medicines In Clinical Trials
Benefit
Harm
Adapted from presentation by Dr. Barbara Evans, ASCPT Annual Meeting (2010)
Frequency of various responses in the RCT treated population
Neither harm or benefit --Nonresponders(50%)
Mixed Benefit and Harm (30%). Small benefit for most.
Harm Without Benefit (10%)
Large Benefit with little harm (10%)
Magnitude
18
Personalized Medicine & Personalized Genomics
• Personalized medicine uses traditional, as well as emergingconcepts of the genetic and environmental basis of disease toindividualize prevention, diagnosis and treatment.
• Personalized genomics builds on principles established by theintegration of genetics into medical practice.
• Principles shared by genetic and genomic aspects of medicine,include the use of variants as markers for diagnosis, prognosis,prevention, as well as targets for treatment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3128266/
19
Quantitative Tools During Drug Development
Basic Research
Non-Clinical
ClinicalPost-
Marketing
Tools
Decisions Target IDADME, Biomarkers, POC, Dose,
Efficacy, Safety, Approval, Labeling
Safety, New
Indication
Process Pre-INDEOP2A
EOP2NDA/BLA
Quantitative ModelsMechanistic Empirical
Innovative Designs
20
Personalized Medicine in the Age of Biomarkers
21
Decreased Development Time
http://www.impactjournals.com/oncotarget/index.php?journal=oncotarget&page=article&op=view&path[]=10588&pubmed-linkout=1
A net decrease in
development time of 34
months or almost 3yrs
22
MAXIMIZING VALUE ENRICHMENT APPROACHES IN CLINICAL TRIALS
23
Average Efficacy and Safety of Drugs in Clinical Trial Participants
% of patients achieving a clinically significant response
Source: Steven Paul, CEO, Lilly
Leading causes of deaths in the United States for 2006
Source: Centers for Disease Control
BENEFIT RISK
24
Enrichment Trial Design
Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:270-278. doi:10.7326/M15-2413
• Can be viewed as a modification of a
standard trial design where patients
screened for trial enrollment are
evaluated for a specific mutation prior
to treatment randomization
• Those with the mutation are then
randomized to therapy
• Those without the mutation are
removed from the trial
• Following screening the population
remaining in the trial is “enriched”
towards responding rather than a
naive randomization without screening
25
Umbrella Trials
Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:270-278. doi:10.7326/M15-2413
• An umbrella trial is restricted to patients
with a single primary site or histologic type
of cancer.
• Those with “actionable” mutations are
grouped together by mutation and are
randomly assigned to therapy that is
mutation “specific”.
• Those without actionable mutations are
removed from the trial.
• The leverage here is that more than one
drug or treatment regimen can be
evaluated based on the observed
mutations.
26
Basket Trials
Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:270-278. doi:10.7326/M15-2413
• Patient eligibility is based on a defined
genomic alteration rather than on primary
site.
• They can be nonrandomized or
randomized and can include more than
one drug
• In a multi-drug basket study, for each
drug studied, all of the patients share a
common mutation but have different
primary disease sites. The primary
disease site deter-mines the cell type of
the tumor, and this may influence
responsiveness to a drug in addition to
mutations present in the tumor.
27
Adaptive Trial Designs
• Adaptive aspects can be incorporated into most trial designs, including the standard cross-over and parallel designs.
• It incorporates intermediate looks at the defined times during the trial and then re-adusting the trial by:
– Enrolling more patients
– Re-evaluating dosing levels
– Changing treatments
– Evalutaing multiple biomarkers
28
REGULATORY APPROACHES
29
Fast Track Designation
• Drug intended to treat a serious condition
• Nonclinical or clinical data needed to
demonstrate the potential to meet an
unmet medical need.
Breakthrough
• Drug intended to treat a serious condition
• Must be preliminary clinical evidence to
indicate the drug may substantially improve a
clinically significant endpoint compared to
available therapies
Priority Review
• Drug must treat a serious condition and, if
approved, offer a significant improvement in
safety or effectiveness
• Designation assigned only at the time of the
original NDA or efficacy filing
Accelerated Approval
• Drug must treat a serious condition and
generally provide a meaningful advantage over
available therapies
• Must demonstrate an effect on a surrogate
endpoint that is likely to predict a clinical
benefit or on a clinical endpoint
FDA’s “Accelerated” Pathways
Entering Drug
Development cycleTo Market
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm358301.pdf
30
Accelerated Pathways Under PDUFA-V
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm552923.pdf
31
Use of Special Programs 2016
• Total NME’s Approved - 22
• Priority – 15
• Orphan Drugs – 9
• Fast Track – 8
• Breakthrough – 7
• Accelerated – 6
• Two - 5
• Three - 4
• Four - 4
• Five - 1
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugInnovation/UCM536693.pdf
73% of all NME Approvals Used One or More Designation
32
COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE!
33
Why Communicate?
• Based on my 30yr experience in drug development I can saywithout hesitation that early and competent communicationwith a regulatory Agency is key to a proper decision-making.
– Competent in that the questions asked must be based onscience and not “hypothetical”
– Proper decision-making in that sometimes “killing” a drugin development IS the right answer
• The FDA is open to discussion with individual sponsors andconsortia and there are many mechanisms to accomplish that
– InFY2015, FDA received over 3,000 formal PDUFA meetingrequests from sponsors
• From a regulatory standpoint the FDA has identified and hadcodified key time points for meetings with industry.
34
Communication: The A, B, C’s
35
A-B-C Meetings
• Type A Meeting – is a meeting that is "immediatelynecessary for an otherwise stalled drug developmentprogram to proceed." This type of meeting refers tomeetings to resolve disputes, talk about clinical holds,special protocol assessments.
• Type B Meeting – these are listed as (1) pre-IND meetings,(2) certain end of Phase I meetings, (3) end of Phase 2/pre-Phase 3 meetings and (4) pre-NDA/BLA meetings.
• Type C Meeting – can you guess? Yes, a Type C meeting isany other kind of meeting.– This includes “Discipline specific meetings” when you only have
issues for one review discipline such as Chemistry or ClinicalPharmacology and the other review disciplines are not required
36
Clinical Pharmacology Advice on the Development of Personalized Medicines
• AD, assay development; BCS, biospecimen collection/storage; DA, data analysis; ED, exposure/dosing; FDA, US Food and Drug Administration; IND, investigational new drug application; PS, patient selection; Saf, safety; TD, trial design.
Key Milestones in Development
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/clpt.2013.32/full
37
www.fda.gov/downloads/scienceresearch/specialtopics/regulatoryscience/ucm268225.pdf
Regulatory ScienceScience of developing new tools,standards, and approaches to assess thesafety, efficacy, quality, and performanceof FDA- regulated products
VisionFDA will advance regulatory science tospeed innovation, improve regulatorydecision- making, and get products topeople in need. 21st Century regulatoryscience will be a driving force as FDAworks with diverse partners to protectand promote the health of our nation andthe global community
38
2. Stimulate Innovation in Clinical Evaluations & Personalized
Medicine to Improve Product Development and Patient Outcomes
4. Ensure FDA Readiness to Evaluate Innovative Emerging
Technologies
6. Implement a New Prevention-Focused food Safety System to
Protect Public Health
5. Harness Diverse Data Through Information Sciences to Improve
Health Outcomes
7. Facilitate Development of medical Countermeasures to Protect
Against Threats to U.S. and Global Health and Security
8. Strengthen Social and Behavorial Science to Help Consumers
and Professionals Make Informed Decisions about Regulated
Products
1. Modernize Toxicology to Enhance Product
Safety
3. Support New Approaches to Improve Product Manufacturing
and Quality
Science Priority Areas
39
Partnership Matrix
Ramsey BW et al. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1762-1769
Partnership roles vary formany reasons includingthe state of knowledge ofthe disease, the existenceof biomarkers, and thedevelopment of matureacademic research centersfor a particular disease.
40
CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSING THOUGHTS
41
The Future
• It is easy to say that we are on the edge of a revolution in drug development
– We have ALWAYS been on the EDGE!
– Only the tools and our perspective of them have changed
• Patient factors are being recognized more and more as the key to individualizing not only drug therapy but expectations of therapy.
42
Missing Patients
• Clinical trials still have an underrepresentation of all affected populations
• Genetic, social, patient care, and drug delivery factors are often missed with serious consequences
• It was only 24yrs ago that the FDA started requiring the enrollment of women in clinical trials.
43
Linkage of Patient Factors to PK and PD
44
Communicating the Future
• As new advances are made, they must be reflected both in regulatory policy and in patient care
• While we rightly focus on the population, we must not lose sight of the individual patient and the individual physician, nurse, and pharmacist as well
• Clinical Pharmacology can help identify populations and broaden patient utility and safety
• Only by selecting the right biomarkers and identifying the proper dose for the patient population can we make “every patient count” as every patient is a teaching opportunity for us
45
Collaborative Efforts to Strengthen Regulatory Science
46
Combining the Workstreams
Biomarker SelectionUtilize in vitro and in
vivo systems to probe
and qualify biomarkers
PBPK ModelingBuild models based on
observed knowledge with a
“learn and confirm” strategy.
Classical PK/PDSynthesize the
available PK/PD data
on Drug Metabolism
Develop
Actionable
InformationInformed labeling for the
prescriber
PharmacogenomicsUtilize in vitro systems
to identify relevant
genetic factors to
enhance patient safety
and selection
Patient SelectionUnderstand the pathology
of the disease to select
the needed diversity in the
affected population
47
Concluding Thought
“If I had five minutes to
chop down a tree, I’d spend
the first three minutes
sharpening my axe.”
Abraham Lincoln
Rigorous preparation is the key to success
48
Contact Information
CAPT Edward D. Bashaw, PharmD.Director, Div. of Clinical Pharmacology-3US FDA10903 New Hampshire AveBuilding 51, Rm 3134Edward.Bashaw@fda.hhs.gov
49
Acknowledgements
• The Staff of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology-3
• The Office of Clinical Pharmacology
• The Office of Translational Sciences
• The Drug Information Association-China
top related