Search

Heart failure (HF) patients experience a high burden of symptoms and functional limitations, and morbidity and mortality remain high despite successful therapies. The majority of HF drugs in the United States are approved for reducing hospitalization and mortality, while only a few have indications for improving quality of life, physical function, or symptoms. Patient-reported outcomes that directly measure patient's perception of health status (symptoms, physical function, or quality of life) are potentially approvable endpoints in drug development. This paper summarizes the history of endpoints used for HF drug approvals in the United States and reviews endpoints that measure symptoms, physical function, or quality of life in HF patients.

We present an application of a quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) model to support a regulatory decision, specifically in assessing the adequacy of the proposed dosing regimen. On January 23, 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Natpara (human parathyroid hormone (PTH)) to control hypocalcemia in patients with hypoparathyroidism. Clinical trial results indicated that although once-daily PTH reduced calcium and vitamin D dose requirement while maintaining the normocalcemia, the regimen was not adequate to control hypercalciuria. We hypothesized that the lack of control on urinary calcium excretion was due to the short half-life of PTH. The QSP model-based simulations indicated that a more frequent dosing regimen may provide better control on hypercalciuria while maintaining normocalcemia. A postmarketing trial was recommended to assess pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics (PDs) of PTH dose and dosing regimen. Although other modeling approaches may be feasible, in this specific case, QSP model-based simulations fulfilled the information gap to support recommendations of this postmarketing trial.

The Division of Lung Diseases of the NHLBI and the Cardiovascular Medical Education and Research Fund held a workshop to discuss how to leverage the anticipated scientific output from the recently launched "Redefining Pulmonary Hypertension through Pulmonary Vascular Disease Phenomics" (PVDOMICS) program to develop newer approaches to pulmonary vascular disease. PVDOMICS is a collaborative, protocol-driven network to analyze all patient populations with pulmonary hypertension to define novel pulmonary vascular disease (PVD) phenotypes. Stakeholders, including basic, translational, and clinical investigators; clinicians; patient advocacy organizations; regulatory agencies; and pharmaceutical industry experts, joined to discuss the application of precision medicine to PVD clinical trials. Recommendations were generated for discussion of research priorities in line with NHLBI Strategic Vision Goals that include: (1) A national effort, involving all the stakeholders, should seek to coordinate biosamples and biodata from all funded programs to a web-based repository so that information can be shared and correlated with other research projects. Example programs sponsored by NHLBI include PVDOMICS, Pulmonary Hypertension Breakthrough Initiative, the National Biological Sample and Data Repository for PAH, and the National Precision Medicine Initiative. (2) A task force to develop a master clinical trials protocol for PVD to apply precision medicine principles to future clinical trials. Specific features include: (a) adoption of smaller clinical trials that incorporate biomarker-guided enrichment strategies, using adaptive and innovative statistical designs; and (b) development of newer endpoints that reflect well-defined and clinically meaningful changes. (3) Development of updated and systematic variables in imaging, hemodynamic, cellular, genomic, and metabolic tests that will help precisely identify individual and shared features of PVD and serve as the basis of novel phenotypes for therapeutic interventions.

The purpose of this study was to describe the role of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in ensuring the safety of patients receiving investigational drugs under expanded access.To better define FDA's role in the review of requests for expanded access, multiple queries of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) document tracking system were performed. The queries identified reasons for, and outcomes of, expanded access requests for investigational drugs that were either not allowed to proceed or denied over a 10-year time period. An in-depth review of a random sample of single-patient, non-emergency investigational new drug (IND) applications that were allowed to proceed was also conducted.Overall, 99.3% of the applications for almost 9000 expanded access of an investigational drug were allowed to proceed. There were 62 requests that were either denied (38 emergency INDs) or not allowed to proceed (24 non-emergency INDs). The most common reasons for denying emergency INDs was that the patient was stable on current therapy and that it was not deemed an emergency. The most common reasons for not allowing non-emergency expanded access INDs to proceed were incomplete application, unsafe dosing, demonstrated lack of efficacy for intended use, availability of adequate alternative therapies, and inadequate information provided in the application on which to base a decision. A review of a random sample of 150 single-patient, non-emergency INDs revealed that FDA recommended changes to dosing, safety monitoring, or informed consent in 11%.FDA plays a significant role in the protection of patients who receive investigational drugs under expanded access. An extremely small percentage of applications received are not allowed to proceed; however, FDA provides significant input based on information that may not be available to treating physicians in order to ensure patient safety under the applications that do proceed.