Search

This paper focuses on the role of clinical and translational pharmacology in the drug development and the regulatory process. Contemporary regulatory issues faced by FDA's Office of Clinical Pharmacology (OCP) in fulfilling its mission to advance the science of drug response and translate patient diversity into optimal drug therapy are discussed. Specifically current focus of the following key aspects of the drug development and regulatory science processes are discussed: the OCP vision and mission, two key OCP initiatives (i.e. guidance modernization, labeling and health communications), and translational and clinical pharmacology related regulatory science issues in (i.e. uncertainty, breakthrough therapies, individualization)., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Federally funded research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genomics includes a programmatic charge to consider policy-relevant questions and to communicate findings in venues that help inform the policy-making process. In addressing this goal, investigators must consider the range of policies that are relevant to human genetics; how foundational research in bioethics, law, and the social sciences might inform those policies; and the potential professional issues that this translational imperative raises for ELSI investigators. We review these questions in light of experiences from a consortium of federally funded Centers of Excellence in ELSI Research, and offer a set of policy recommendations for program design and evaluation of ELSI research. We conclude that it would be a mistake to require that ELSI research programs demonstrate a direct impact on science or health policy; however, ELSI researchers can take steps to increase the relevance of their work to policy makers. Similarly, funders of ELSI research who are concerned with facilitating policy development can help by building cross-disciplinary translational research capacities, and universities can take steps to make policy-relevant research more rewarding for scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and law.

Dramatic improvements have occurred in the overall health of our children driven by rigorous research translated into clinical practice. However, all is not well for too many, not only for their health but for other outcomes of their lives. These outcomes reflect poorly on how professional groups in child life and health have advocated effectively at the political level for the needs of children and for the services to support them. Professional staff in child health, including those involved in neonatal care, must become more effective in translating research into political advocacy for the best interests of children. A scientific approach to political advocacy is needed that is equivalent in its rigour to the best of bio-medical research. Above all, the care of the newly born infant should not be seen in isolation, but in the overall context of childhood and the services to support children today., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

The data-sharing policies of the National Institutes of Health aim to maximize public benefit derived from genetic studies by increasing research efficiency and use of a pooled data resource for future studies. Although broad access to data may lead to benefits for populations underrepresented in genetic studies, such as indigenous groups, tribes have ownership interest in their data. The Northwest-Alaska Pharmacogenetic Research Network, a partnership involving tribal organizations and universities conducting basic and translational pharmacogenetic research, convened a meeting to discuss the collection, management, and secondary use of research data, and of the processes surrounding access to data stored in federal repositories. This article reports the tribal perspectives that emerged from the dialogue and discusses the implications of tribal government sovereign status on research agreements and data-sharing negotiations. There is strong tribal support for efficient research processes that expedite the benefits from collaborative research, but there is also a need for data-sharing procedures that take into account tribal sovereignty and appropriate oversight of research--such as tribally based research review processes and review of draft manuscripts. We also note specific ways in which accountability could be encouraged by the National Institutes of Health as part of the research process.

The "stem cell" has become arguably one of the most important biological tools in the arsenal of translational research directed at regeneration and repair. It remains to be seen whether every tissue has its own stem cell niche, although relatively recently a large amount of research has focused on isolating and characterizing tissue-specific stem cell populations, as well as those that are able to be directed to transdifferentiate into a variety of different lineages. Traditionally, stem cells are isolated from the viable tissue of embryonic, fetal, or adult living hosts; from "fresh" donated tissues that have been surgically or otherwise removed (biopsies), or obtained directly from tissues within minutes to several hours post mortem (PM). These human progenitor/stem cell sources remain potentially highly controversial, since they are accompanied by various still-unresolved ethical, social, moral and legal challenges. Due to the limited number of "live" donors, the small amount of material obtained from biopsies and difficulties during purification processes, harvesting from cadaveric material presents itself as an alternative strategy that could provide a hitherto untapped source of stem cells. However, PM stem cells are not without their own unique set of limitations including difficulty of obtaining samples, limited supply of material, variations in delay between death and sample collection, possible lack of medication history and suboptimal retrospective assignment of diagnostic and demographic data. This article is part of a Directed Issue entitled: Regenerative Medicine: The challenge of translation., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

By 2012 the pharmaceutical industry has generally recognized the value proposition offered through 'personalized medicine': shorter regulatory reviews and higher prices as a tradeoff for a more specific patient market. Examples of companion diagnostics (Cdx) exist not only in oncology, but across therapeutic areas that allow us to define treatment benefit and identify the 'best patients' for a given treatment approach or combination thereof. In the 13 years since the co-approval of trastuzumab (Herceptin(®)) from Genentech and the HercepTest(®) from Dako, the regulatory and commercial environments have yet to adopt a standard methodology for co-development and co-approval. Furthermore, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to emerge despite attempts by various stakeholders to create an environment of conformity for approval and reimbursement issues. What has emerged, however, is the experience of clinical developers and commercial teams in bringing these products to market. In this article, we focus on the many factors that should be considered to successfully develop and market a companion diagnostic, based on lessons learned from recent case studies. A proposed framework of questions to be addressed at the various stages of developing highly effective companion diagnostic products is also presented., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

For as long as the federal regulations governing human subjects research have existed, the practice of informed consent has been attacked as culturally biased, legalistic, ritualistic and unevenly enforced. Its focus on meeting the regulatory requirements is seen as undermining a truly ethical process that produces informed and voluntary participation in medical research. Recent changes in the clinical translational research enterprise, with large scale genomic and other data sharing made possible by advanced bioinformatic technologies, may further challenge this goal. Study participants are asked to consent to future studies with unspecified aims, broad data sharing policies and ongoing uncertainties regarding confidentiality protections and the potential benefit of incidental genomic research findings. Because more research is conducted under these new conditions, the very nature of the researcher-subject relationship is shifting and will require new governance mechanisms to promote the original goals of informed consent.

Informed consent is one of the great puzzles of modern medical research and practice. As Professor Henderson has argued in her article, there is ample reason to be concerned that many, and maybe all, of the goals announced for informed consent law and ethics have not been reached. In this article, I will review the goals that theorists and judges have assigned to the doctrine and discuss some of the evidence concerning the difficulties of meeting those goals. Finally, I will suggest some of the reasons that might account for our continued commitment to informed consent despite its difficulties.