Search

Pharmacometric analyses have become an increasingly important component of New Drug Application (NDA) and Biological License Application (BLA) submissions to the US FDA to support drug approval, labelling and trial design decisions. Pharmacometrics is defined as a science that quantifies drug, disease and trial information to aid drug development, therapeutic decisions and/or regulatory decisions. In this report, we present the results of a survey evaluating the impact of pharmacometric analyses on regulatory decisions for 198 submissions during the period from 2000 to 2008. Pharmacometric review of NDAs included independent, quantitative analyses by FDA pharmacometricians, even when such analysis was not conducted by the sponsor, as well as evaluation of the sponsor's report. During 2000-2008, the number of reviews with pharmacometric analyses increased dramatically and the number of reviews with an impact on approval and labelling also increased in a similar fashion. We also present the impact of pharmacometric analyses on selection of paediatric dosing regimens, approval of regimens that had not been directly studied in clinical trials and provision of evidence of effectiveness to support a single pivotal trial. Case studies are presented to better illustrate the role of pharmacometric analyses in regulatory decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On October 6, 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an intravenous (IV) formulation and dosage of Cosentyx® (secukinumab), for the treatment of adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), active ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) with objective signs of inflammation. Clinical pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and short-term placebo-controlled safety data were available from clinical studies (NCT04156620 and NCT04209205) with the to-be-marketed IV formulation using a maintenance dosage 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks (q4w), which was different from the dose approved (1.75 mg/kg q4w). The IV dosage of 3 mg/kg utilized in these two trials resulted in exposures (C max,ss ) significantly higher than those for the approved subcutaneous (SC) regimens. Further, there is limited long-term safety information available for this 3 mg/kg q4w IV dose. To address this important limitation, a model-informed drug development (MIDD) approach was employed to leverage available clinical PK, efficacy, and safety data from the secukinumab development program to identify a maintenance IV dosing regimen, 1.75 mg/kg IV q4w, that better approximated the relevant SC secukinumab exposures for which efficacy and safety have been established. The MIDD analyses were used to support approval of this IV dosing regimen not directly studied in the indications sought for licensure, PsA, AS, and nr-AxSpA., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2024 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

While some model-informed drug development frameworks are well recognized as enabling clinical trials, the value of disease progression modeling (DPM) in impacting medical product development has yet to be fully realized. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative assembled a diverse project team from across the patient, academic, regulatory, and industry sectors of practice to advance the use of DPM for decision making in clinical trials and medical product development. This team conducted a scoping review to explore current applications of DPM and convened a multi-stakeholder expert meeting to discuss its value in medical product development. In this article, we present the scoping review and expert meeting output and propose key questions that medical product developers and regulators may use to inform clinical development strategy, appreciate the therapeutic context and endpoint selection, and optimize trial design with disease progression models. By expanding awareness of the unique value of DPM, this article does not aim to be technical in nature but rather aims to highlight the potential of DPM to improve the quality and efficiency of medical product development., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

It has become increasingly common for patients to rely on the use of multiple prescription medications. The management of polypharmacy requires careful consideration for how drugs are metabolized and their potential for interaction with other drugs. Drug-drug interaction (DDI) assessments are typically performed in a stepwise manner during drug development, though knowledge gaps can exist at the time of approval. The US Food and Drug Administration can establish postmarketing requirements (PMRs) or postmarketing commitments (PMCs) to address these knowledge gaps. In this study, we systematically evaluated PMRs and PMCs established to new molecular entities (NMEs) at the time of initial approval between 2009 and 2023, for the assessment of pharmacokinetics-based DDIs (i.e., drug metabolizing enzyme- and transporter-related DDIs). We found that 22% of NMEs had at least one DDI-related PMR or PMC, with a total of 263 that were pharmacokinetic based. Of these, 67% were for the assessment of drug metabolizing enzymes, which were established most frequently for their evaluation as a substrate, and 28% for transporters, which were established most frequently for their evaluation as an inhibitor. The 89% of PMRs and PMCs that were considered fulfilled had a revision to the United States prescribing information, the majority of which resulted in updated new instructions for use. This study highlights the value in conducting PMRs and PMCs early in the drug development process allowing broad patient inclusion at the time of initial drug approval., (Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Introduced by the Hatch-Waxman Amendments of 1984, 505(b)(2) applications permit the US Food and Drug Administration to rely, for approval of a new drug application, on information from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. This pathway is designed to circumvent the unnecessary duplication of studies already conducted on a previously approved drug. It can lead to a considerably more efficient and expedited route to approval compared to a traditional development path. Model-informed drug development refers to the utilization of a diverse array of quantitative models in drug development to streamline the decision-making process. In this approach, diverse quantitative models that integrate knowledge of physiology, disease processes, and drug pharmacology are employed to address drug development challenges and guide regulatory decisions. Integration of these model-informed approaches into 505(b)(2) regulatory submissions and decision-making can further expedite the approval of new drugs. This article discusses some applications of model-informed approaches that were used to support 505(b)(2) drug development and regulatory actions. Specifically, various quantitative models such as population pharmacokinetic and exposure-response models have been employed to provide evidence of effectiveness, guide dosing in subgroups such as subjects with hepatic or renal impairment, and inform policies. These case study examples collectively underscore the significance of model-informed approaches in drug development and regulatory decisions associated with 505(b)(2) submissions., (Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Statins are widely prescribed and highly susceptible to pharmacokinetic (PK)-based drug-drug interactions (DDIs). To date, there has not been a comprehensive analysis of the basis upon which statin DDI recommendations in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prescribing information (PI) are derived. We have conducted such an analysis. We also assessed the degree of concordance of statin DDI recommendations in FDA PI and those provided in common tertiary clinical resources. We catalogued statin DDI information, including PK data and management recommendations, for statin precipitant drugs approved from 2010 to 2021, available from FDA PI and tertiary clinical resource databases. Recommendations were categorized and mapped with associated PK data to assess consistency in the PK basis for labeling recommendations. From the 80 precipitant drugs evaluated, 180 statin DDIs were identified in FDA PI. Dedicated clinical DDI studies were conducted for 54% (n = 97) of these DDIs and 34% (n = 61) of DDI recommendations were extrapolated from clinical data with other statins. Overall, we found that PK-based statin recommendations were consistent across PI. These findings highlight regulatory precedence for translating information across statins without conducting dedicated clinical DDI studies, which may support future efforts toward streamlining the approach to investigation and labeling of statin DDIs. In addition, with the exception of some notable discrepancies, general concordance was observed between FDA and tertiary resources regarding "Dose Adjustment" and "Avoid Coadministration" recommendations. However, further analyses are warranted across other DDI pairs to determine whether discordance can routinely lead to different clinical recommendations depending on the drug information resource., (Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Intravenous or subcutaneous routes of administration (ROAs) are common dosing routes for therapeutic proteins. Eleven therapeutic proteins with approval for one ROA have subsequently received approval for a second ROA. The clinical programs supporting the second ROA consistently leveraged data from the first ROA and included studies that characterized the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of the drug administered by the new ROA to identify an appropriate dosage regimen. The selected dosing regimen was then further evaluated in clinical trials designed with various primary end points. All programs implemented model-informed drug development approaches to ensure that the selected regimens would achieve comparable systemic exposures (PK-based bridging) or pharmacodynamic (PD) responses (PD-based bridging) as the reference ROA. To support the approval of a second ROA, these programs either demonstrated noninferiority in PK, PD, and/or clinical end points for the second ROA, or established efficacy and safety through a comparison to a placebo treatment. The accumulative examples showed that clinical trials which provided the primary evidence to support approvals of the second ROA generally demonstrated noninferiority in the systemic exposures regardless of being specified as an end point or not in the study protocols. The experience to date supports the use of PK- and PD-based bridging approaches not only in the selection of dosing regimens for a second ROA to be tested in clinical studies, but also for providing evidence of effectiveness to support approval, when appropriate., (Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

The prevalence of obesity has grown tremendously in recent years and this population has an increased risk of disease comorbidities. The presence of disease comorbidities requires treatment interventions and proper dosing guidelines. However, drug development programs often do not have adequate representation of individuals who are obese in clinical trials, leaving gaps in the understanding of treatment response leading to a lack of adequate individualization options. Based on a recent survey of approved drug product package inserts, very few approved products included specific dosing based on obesity, in both adults and pediatrics. Reasons for the limited information on patients who are obese may include the under-reporting of information regarding such patients and a lack of clinical trial diversity in enrolling patient groups in whom obesity or obesity-related comorbidities are more prevalent. An inadvertent impact of the practice of exclusion of subsets of patients with some comorbidities in clinical trials may play a role in the reduced enrollment of individuals who are obese. Recently, regulatory authorities have taken specific initiatives to promote clinical trial diversity, including engaging with stakeholders and publishing regulatory guidance. These guidance documents highlight the need to enroll diverse clinical trial populations and provide recommendations on concepts related to drug development for obese populations. Such efforts will help to address the gap in information regarding drug response and dosing in patients who are obese., (Published 2023. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Deriving pediatric doses for locally acting drugs (LADs) presents a unique challenge because limited systemic exposure hinders commonly used approaches such as pharmacokinetic matching to adults. This study systematically evaluated drug development practices used for pediatric dose selection of LADs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 2002 to 2020. The three study objectives were: (1) to determine the dose selection approach for the labeled pediatric dose, (2) to examine the studied pediatric dose(s), and (3) to evaluate the characteristics of the pediatric clinical programs used to support the labeled pediatric dose. A total of 187 pediatric submissions were characterized for the labeled and studied pediatric doses of LADs. The pediatric dose was predominantly labeled as a flat dose (91%) and at a single-dose level (67%) similar to adults. The majority (68.4%) of the submissions had the same labeled dose for pediatrics and adults. Independent pharmacodynamic/efficacy studies in pediatric patients commonly (64.2%) provided supportive evidence for the labeled pediatric dose. Inhalation, nasal, and injectable submissions had the highest number of clinical trials, lowest usage of an extrapolation of efficacy approach, and utilized diverse approaches in selecting the studied pediatric doses. This article highlights approaches for LAD dosing in pediatric patients and can be used to inform drug development of these products in the pediatric population., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Clinical trials are an integral aspect of drug development. Tremendous progress has been made in ensuring drug products are effective and safe for use in the intended pediatric population, but there remains a paucity of information to guide drug dosages in pediatric patients with obesity. This is concerning because obesity may influence the disposition of drug products. When pediatric patients with obesity are not enrolled in clinical trials, dosing options for use in this subpopulation may be suboptimal. Reliance on physiological-based dosing strategies that are not informed by evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of the drug product could lead to under- or over-dosing with ensuing therapeutic failure or toxicity consequences. Thus, representation of pediatric patients with obesity in clinical trials is crucial to understand the benefit-risk profile of drug products in this subpopulation. It is important to acknowledge that this is a challenging endeavor, but not one that is insurmountable. Collective efforts from multiple stakeholders including drug developers and regulators to enhance diversity in clinical trials can help fill critical gaps in knowledge related to the influence of obesity on drug disposition.

Characterization of infant drug exposure through human milk is important and underexplored. Because infant plasma concentrations are not frequently collected in clinical lactation studies, modeling and simulation approaches can integrate physiology, available milk concentrations, and pediatric data to inform exposure in breastfeeding infants. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model was built for sotalol, a renally eliminated drug, to simulate infant drug exposure from human milk. Intravenous and oral adult models were built, optimized, and scaled to an oral pediatric model for a breastfeeding-relevant age group (<2 years). Model simulations captured the data that were put aside for verification. The resulting pediatric model was applied to predict the impacts of sex, infant body size, breastfeeding frequency, age, and maternal dose (240 and 433 mg) on drug exposure during breastfeeding. Simulations suggest a minimal effect of sex or frequency on total sotalol exposure. Infants in the 90th percentile in height and weight have predicted exposures ≈20% higher than infants of the same age in the 10th percentile due to increased milk intake. The simulated infant exposures increase throughout the first 2 weeks of life and are maintained at the highest concentrations in weeks 2-4, with a consistent decrease observed as infants age. Simulations suggest that breastfeeding infants will have plasma concentrations in the lower range observed in infants administered sotalol. With further validation on additional drugs, physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling approaches could use lactation data to a greater extent and provide comprehensive information to support decisions regarding medication use during breastfeeding., (© 2023, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Many of the conditions for the safe and effective use of new molecular entities (NMEs) are understood at the time of initial drug approval. However, some remaining knowledge gaps can be addressed after drug approval through postmarketing requirements (PMRs) or commitments (PMCs) established by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Our objective was to conduct an assessment of clinical pharmacology-related PMRs and PMCs established at the time of approval and evaluate the impact of fulfilled PMRs and PMCs on prescription information (PI). This analysis included clinical pharmacology-related PMRs and PMCs established for NMEs approved between 2009 and 2020. Of the 1171 PMRs and PMCs, over one-third were clinical pharmacology-related. Of these, 46% were to evaluate drug interactions, 16% were to evaluate drug dosing in patients with hepatic impairment, and 10% were related to dose. The majority (57%) of PMRs and PMCs were fulfilled at the time of analysis, with a median time to fulfillment of approximately 2.3 years. The majority (94%) of the fulfilled PMRs and PMCs, either with or without a PI revision, resulted in new or modified instructions for use or supported existing instructions for use. This is the first time that clinical pharmacology-related PMRs and PMCs have been catalogued and analyzed to understand their impact on PI. An understanding of the knowledge gaps that exist at the time of drug approval could inform the most effective and efficient methods for evidence generation prior to and after new drug approval., (Published 2023. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Theoretically, the risk of food effects for extended-release (ER) products compared to IR products may be less because: (1) postprandial physiological changes are usually transient and last for 2-3 h only; and (2) the percentage of drug release from an ER product within the first 2-3 h post dose is usually small under both fasted and fed states. The major postprandial physiological changes that can affect oral absorption of ER drugs are delayed gastric emptying and prolonged intestinal transit. Oral absorption of ER drugs under fasted state mainly occurs in large intestine (colon and rectum) while the absorption of ER drugs under fed state occurs in both small and large intestines. We hypothesized that food effects for ER products are mainly caused by intestinal region-dependent absorption and food intake is more likely to increase rather than decrease the exposure of ER products due to a longer transit time and improved absorption in small intestine. For drugs with good absorption from large intestine, food effects on the area under the curve (AUC) of ER products are usually not expected. Our survey of oral drugs approved by the US FDA between 1998-2021 identified 136 oral ER drug products. Among the 136 ER drug products, 31, 6 and 99 products exhibited increased, decreased, and unchanged AUC under fed conditions, respectively. In general, when an ER product exhibits a fasted bioavailability (BA) relative to its corresponding immediate-release (IR) product between 80-125%, regardless the solubility or permeability of drug substances, substantial food effects on the AUC of ER product are generally not expected. If the fasted relative BA data are not available, a high in vitro permeability (i.e., Caco-2 or MDCK cell permeability comparable or higher than that of metoprolol) may inform no food effect on the AUC of an ER product of high-solubility (BCS class I and III) drug., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists.)

Although the population in the United States is diverse, there are disparities in healthcare outcomes in some populations, for example, based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, sex, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. Despite disproportionate healthcare outcomes, certain populations are frequently under-represented in clinical trials intended to support applications requesting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market a drug or biologic. Additionally, safety and efficacy of therapeutic products may vary based on intrinsic (e.g., sex, age, race, and ethnicity) and/or extrinsic (e.g., drug interactions and medical practice) factors. Enrolling diverse populations in clinical trials can aid in addressing disparities and better inform the use of medical products in all patients who will use them upon approval. Herein, we outline a few initiatives and activities, such as policy development, regulatory review, regulatory research, and stakeholder engagement, that the FDA has undertaken to promote diversity in clinical trials, to support submission of such information in marketing applications for subgroup analyses, and to communicate information to the public., (Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Clinical pharmacology is an integral discipline supporting the development, regulatory evaluation, and clinical use of drugs for the treatment of both common and rare diseases. Here, we evaluated the recommendations and information available from select clinical pharmacology studies in the therapeutic product labeling of new molecular entities (NMEs) approved from 2017 to 2019 for both common and rare diseases. A total of 151 NMEs, including 72 orphan and 79 non-orphan drugs, were analyzed for recommendations and information available related to food-drug interaction, drug-drug interaction, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, QT assessment, and human radiolabeled mass balance studies using data collected from the original labeling and other regulatory documents. The analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the recommendations between orphan and non-orphan drugs except for renal impairment related recommendations in section 8 of the labeling. Although not significant, fewer hepatic impairment labeling recommendations were available for orphan drugs when compared with non-orphan drugs. At the time of initial approval, 79 postmarketing requirements (PMRs) and postmarketing commitments (PMCs) for 33 orphan drugs and 39 PMRs and PMCs for 19 non-orphan drugs were established; with most difference observed for drug-drug interaction, hepatic impairment, and QT assessment. Overall, although there was a trend for more labeling recommendations and fewer postmarketing studies and clinical trials for non-orphan drugs, there appeared to be no substantial differences in how these select clinical pharmacology studies are leveraged during the development and approval of orphan and non-orphan drugs., (Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Assessment of transporter-mediated drug-drug interaction (DDI) is integral to drug development. A risk-based approach leveraging in vitro, in vivo, and in silico information is used to evaluate the DDI liability of drugs and inform the instructions of use. While tremendous advances have been made in recent decades, there are knowledge gaps warranting further research. Herein, we focus on select areas to advance assessment of DDI potential for drugs as substrates, inhibitors, or inducers of certain transporters., (Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Model-informed drug development (MIDD) is a powerful approach to support drug development and regulatory review. There is a rich history of MIDD applications at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). MIDD applications span across the life cycle of the development of new drugs, generics, and biologic products. In new drug development, MIDD approaches are often applied to inform clinical trial design including dose selection/optimization, aid in the evaluation of critical regulatory review questions such as evidence of effectiveness, and development of policy. In the biopharmaceutics space, we see a trend for increasing role of computational modeling to inform formulation development and help strategize future in vivo studies or lifecycle plans in the post approval setting. As more information and knowledge becomes available pre-approval, quantitative mathematical models are becoming indispensable in supporting generic drug development and approval including complex generic drug products and are expected to help reduce overall time and cost. While the application of MIDD to inform the development of cell and gene therapy products is at an early stage, the potential for future application of MIDD include understanding and quantitative evaluation of information related to biological activity/pharmacodynamics, cell expansion/persistence, transgene expression, immune response, safety, and efficacy. With exciting innovations on the horizon, broader adoption of MIDD is poised to revolutionize drug development for greater patient and societal benefit., (© 2022. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Changes that accompany older age can alter the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and likelihood of adverse effects (AEs) of a drug. However, older adults, especially the oldest or those with multiple chronic health conditions, polypharmacy, or frailty, are often under-represented in clinical trials of new drugs. Deficits in the current conduct of clinical evaluation of drugs for older adults and potential steps to fill those knowledge gaps are presented in this communication. The most important step is to increase clinical trial enrollment of older adults who are representative of the target treatment population. Unnecessary eligibility criteria should be eliminated. Physical and financial barriers to participation should be removed. Incentives could be created for inclusion of older adults. Enrollment goals should be established based on intended treatment indications, prevalence of the condition, and feasibility. Relevant clinical pharmacology data need to be obtained early enough to guide dosing and reduce risk for participation of older adults. Relevant PK and PD data as well as patient-centered outcomes should be measured during trials. Trial data should be analyzed for differences in PK, PD, effectiveness, and safety arising from differences in age or from the presence of conditions common in older adults. Postmarket evaluations with real-world evidence and drug labeling updates throughout the product lifecycle reflecting new knowledge are also needed. A comprehensive plan is needed to ensure adequate evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of drugs in older adults., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2021 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) has been proposed as a scientific domain that can enable efficient and informative drug development. During the past several years, there has been a notable increase in the number of regulatory submissions that contain QSP, including Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), New Drug Applications (NDAs), and Biologics License Applications (BLAs) to the US Food and Drug Administration. However, there has been no comprehensive characterization of the nature of these regulatory submissions regarding model details and intended applications. To address this gap, a landscape analysis of all the QSP submissions as of December 2020 was conducted. This report summarizes the (1) yearly trend of submissions, (2) proportion of submissions between INDs and NDAs/BLAs, (3) percentage distribution along the stages of drug development, (4) percentage distribution across various therapeutic areas, and (5) nature of QSP applications. In brief, QSP is increasingly applied to model and simulate both drug effectiveness and safety throughout the drug development process across disease areas., (Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Differences in patient characteristics, including age, sex, and race influence the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologic products, and medical devices. Here we provide a summary of the topics discussed during the opening panel at the 2018 Johns Hopkins Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation symposium on Assessing and Communicating Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects for Patient Subpopulations: Challenges and Opportunities. The goal of this session was to provide a brief overview of FDA-regulated therapeutics, including drugs, biologics and medical devices, and some of the major sources of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) related to patient demographics, such as age, sex and race. The panel discussed the US Food and Drug Administration's role in reviewing and regulating drugs, devices, and biologic products and the challenges associated with ensuring that diverse patient populations benefit from these therapeutics. Ultimately, ensuring diverse demographic inclusion in clinical trials, and designing basic and clinical research studies to account for the intended patient population's age, sex, race, and genetic factors among other characteristics, will lead to better, safer therapies for diverse patient populations., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Objective: To compare analgesic efficacy, improvement in the quality of life, psychology and learning curve for iliopsoas (IP) injection using ultrasound (US) versus fluoroscopy (FL)., Methods: Thirty-six patients with chronic low back pain secondary to IP myofascial pain were randomly allocated into two groups and were given IP injection in prone position, using either FL or US as a guide. Pain scores were assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS); learning curve was evaluated by the number of attempts, time taken and subjective ease of performing the procedure. The psychological and quality of life assessment were done using Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively., Results: FL and US guided IP injection had equianalgesic efficacy with a decrease in preprocedure NRS pain scores from mean value of 7.06 6 0.24 and 6.78 6 0.24, respectively, to 2.22 6 0.29 and 1.78 6 0.26 (at 24 hours), 1.50 6 0.22 and 1.50 6 0.23 (1 week), 0.50 6 0.12 and 0.56 6 0.15 (4 weeks) and 0.33 6 0.11 and 0.44 6 0.15 (12 weeks) (P < .001). The learning curve was easier for US intervention with average attempts of 1-2 compared to 1-3 for FL. The average time taken to perform IP intervention was lesser for US group. The improvement in DASS and ODI was comparable in both groups., Conclusion: FL and US both are effective modalities for IP muscle injection as they provide equal relief from pain, disability and psychological stress. US guided IP injections are easier to learn and perform in comparison with FL.

Patients with multiple chronic conditions, including more advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), are often excluded from clinical trials, creating challenges in deriving appropriate dosing information and labeling. This article summarizes the May 7, 2019, US Food and Drug Administration Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee Meeting, which solicited expert opinions on how to enroll patients with more advanced CKD into clinical trials as well as the assumptions behind and different approaches of exposure-matching., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2021 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

The pharmaceutical industry is actively applying quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) to make internal decisions and guide drug development. To facilitate the eventual development of a common framework for assessing the credibility of QSP models for clinical drug development, scientists from US Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry organized a full-day virtual Scientific Exchange on July 1, 2020. An assessment form was used to ensure consistency in the evaluation process. Among the cases presented, QSP was applied to various therapeutic areas. Applications mostly focused on phase 2 dose selection. Model transparency, including details on expert knowledge and data used for model development, was identified as a major factor for robust model assessment. The case studies demonstrated some commonalities in the workflow of QSP model development, calibration, and validation but differ in the size, scope, and complexity of QSP models, in the acceptance criteria for model calibration and validation, and in the algorithms/approaches used for creating virtual patient populations. Though efforts are being made to build the credibility of QSP models and the confidence is increasing in applying QSP for internal decisions at the clinical stages of drug development, there are still many challenges facing QSP application to late stage drug development. The QSP community needs a strategic plan that includes the ability and flexibility to Adapt, to establish Common expectations for model Credibility needed to inform drug Labeling and patient care, and to AIM to achieve the goal (ACCLAIM).

Insufficient availability of data to evaluate immunogenicity incidence or clinical impact during regulatory review could require further evaluation postapproval. Through a keyword search of all postmarketing requirements and commitments (PMRs/PMCs) associated with products with their original US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals between 2009 and 2018, we identified products that had PMRs/PMCs established to address concerns or uncertainty related to immunogenicity. Of the 113 relevant products, 50% had an immunogenicity-related PMR/PMC; of these, 68% were related to developing immunogenicity assays and 48% requested an assessment of clinical impact. Fifty-five percent of the products with a fulfilled PMR/PMC had a change in the immunogenicity information in their labeling immediately following fulfillment. This work highlights that there are often unknowns associated with immunogenicity incidence and/or impact at the time of approval. Earlier regulatory discussions on immunogenicity assessments in premarket development could improve the understanding and communication of the risk/benefit profile and reduce the need for some immunogenicity PMRs/PMCs., (Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

A key goal in drug development is optimized dosing for patients. Interactions between drug developers and regulatory scientists throughout development are important for the optimization of dosing and serve as a forum to discuss approaches for optimal dosing, such as precision or individualized dosing. To date, there has not been a systematic assessment of the advice provided by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to drug developers from an individualized dosing perspective. Here, we reviewed FDA recommendations on dose selection for efficacy trials at end-of-phase meetings between the FDA and drug developers for 76 new molecular entities approved between 2013 and 2017 that are considered amenable for an individualized dosing method, response-guided titration. Forty FDA dosing recommendations were identified as specific to dose selection and design of the respective efficacy trials and subsequently: (i) characterized based on if they were supportive of individualized dosing and (ii) compared with dosing regimens used in efficacy trials and labeling at approval to evaluate if FDA recommendations were implemented. Of these 40 recommendations for efficacy trials, 35 (88%) were considered supportive of individualized dosing. Eighteen of these 40 recommendations (45%) were incorporated into efficacy trials and 11 (28%) were incorporated into labeling. This research suggests that early FDA-sponsor interactions can support the study of doses in efficacy trials that may lead to individualized dosing strategies in labeling., (Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: Communicating the clinical impact of immunogenicity in labeling is important for safe and effective use of certain prescription products. Current U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance does not provide comprehensive recommendations on the communication of clinical impact of immunogenicity in labeling. To understand current labeling practice, we evaluated the immunogenicity data and clinical impact information in labeling of selected prescription products., Methods: We created a database of 71 therapeutic biologics and drug products that had an immunogenicity assessment initially approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research between 2014 and 2018. We analyzed the content and format of immunogenicity information (e.g., anti-drug antibody incidence and/or immunogenicity impact on pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and/or effectiveness) in the most recent approved labeling., Results: Immunogenicity information was in the ADVERSE REACTIONS section in 98% of the reviewed labeling. Immunogenicity impact on PK was reported in 52% of the labeling, typically within the ADVERSE REACTIONS section, but supportive PK data were often not included in the CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY section. Additionally, the immunogenicity impact on safety and/or effectiveness was communicated in 70% of the labeling, with 23% clearly communicating the effect as clinically meaningful, and 10% providing actionable recommendations., Conclusions: Most of the reviewed labeling includes immunogenicity information within the ADVERSE REACTIONS section. However, there is inconsistency in providing supportive PK data and high variability in reporting immunogenicity impact on safety and effectiveness in labeling. Development of a communication framework that allows for consistent inclusion of immunogenicity impact statements in labeling could improve how immunogenicity risk is conveyed in prescription drug labeling.

Liver plays a major role in drug metabolism and is one of the main sites of drug adverse effects. Microphysiological systems (MPS), also known as organs-on-a-chip, are a class of microfluidic platforms that recreate properties of tissue microenvironments. Among different properties, the liver microenvironment is three-dimensional, fluid flows around its cells, and different cell types regulate its function. Liver MPS aim to recreate these properties and enable drug testing and measurement of functional endpoints. Tests with these systems have demonstrated their potential for predicting clinical drug effects. Properties of liver MPS that improve the physiology of cell culture are reviewed, specifically focusing on the importance of recreating a physiological microenvironment to evaluate and model drug effects. Advances in modeling hepatic function by leveraging MPS are addressed, noting the need for standardization in the use, quality control, and interpretation of data from these systems., (Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology.)

Selecting a dose regimen that is both safe and effective for patients is one of the most critical elements of a successful drug development program. Titrating the dose regimen of a drug based on patient response may help to identify safe and effective dosages at the individual patient level. Therefore, we quantified and characterized the use of response-guided titration for drugs recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess how frequently this dosing strategy is used and how titration regimens are evaluated during drug development. Most of the 181 drugs approved from 2013-2017 (78%) had only one approved dosing regimen. Only 30 of 76 (39%) drugs that were considered amenable to response-guided dosing strategies had information in labeling about such strategies. These findings indicate that although response-guided titration can be found in labeling, this strategy is used in a minority of drugs for which it may be useful. Careful consideration should be made early in drug development as to whether a new drug is amenable to response-guided titration as an approach to reducing interpatient variability., (Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Model-informed drug development (MIDD) refers to the application of a wide range of quantitative models in drug development to facilitate the decision-making process. MIDD was formally recognized in Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VI. There have been many regulatory applications of MIDD to address a variety of drug development and regulatory questions. These applications can be broadly classified into four categories: dose optimization, supportive evidence for efficacy, clinical trial design, and informing policy. Case studies, literature papers, and published regulatory documents are reviewed in this article to highlight some common features of these applications in each category. In addition to the further development and investment in these established domains of application, new technology, and areas, such as more mechanistic models, neural network models, and real-world data/evidence, are gaining attention, and more submissions and experiences are being accumulated to expand the application of model-based analysis to a wider scope., (Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)