Evaluation of Drug Trials in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries and Local Commercial Availability of Newly Approved Drugs

Questionnaire survey and analysis of drug clinical research implementation capabilities of breast cancer treatment departments in Chinese hospitals

BACKGROUND

Clinical research competence determines the quality of clinical research and the reliability of research findings. We aimed to explore the clinical research implementation capabilities of breast cancer treatment departments in China.

METHODS

This was a department-based cross-sectional study conducted in the form of electronic questionnaires on the Wenjuanxing platform from 7th August to 31st August 2023 among hospitals from the first batch of breast cancer standardized diagnosis and treatment quality control pilot centers in China.

RESULTS

A total of 127 questionnaires from 122 hospitals were ultimately included in the analysis. Medical personnel involved in the clinical research of 118 (92.9 %) departments received good clinical practice (GCP) training. The steps of the approval process from research initiation to completion lasted 2-4 weeks or longer. The majority of departments initiated or participated in 2 or fewer clinical research projects over the past year. Among the differences between different departments, the Department of Medical Oncology had a better qualification profile and process and greater number of initiated and participated clinical studies than did the Department of Surgical Oncology. For needs and problems, most of the departments were strongly willing to undertake clinical research and receive professional training; the most common problem in the process of conducting studies was patient recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Most departments generally exhibited complete capabilities for implementing clinical research. Improvements in implementation efficiency, quality of research and patient recruitment are still needed. Professional training and communication, as well as the recommendation of clinical research, are required in future development.

Establishing a research agenda for the study and assessment of opioid withdrawal

The opioid crisis is an international public health concern. Treatments for opioid use disorder centre largely on the management of opioid withdrawal, an aversive collection of signs and symptoms that contribute to opioid use disorder. Whereas in the past 50 years more than 90 medications have been developed for depression, only five medications have been developed for opioid use disorder during this period. We posit that underinvestment has occurred in part due to an underdeveloped understanding of opioid withdrawal syndrome. This Personal View summarises substantial gaps in our understanding of opioid withdrawal that are likely to continue to limit major advancements in its treatment. There is no firm consensus in the field as to how withdrawal should be precisely defined; 10-550 symptoms of withdrawal can be measured on 18 scales. The imprecise understanding of withdrawal is likely to result in overestimating or underestimating the severity of an individual's withdrawal syndrome or potential therapeutic effects of different candidate medications. The severity of the opioid crisis is not remitting, and an international research agenda for the study and assessment of opioid withdrawal is necessary to support transformational changes in withdrawal management and treatment of opioid use disorder. Nine actionable targets are delineated here: develop a consensus definition of opioid withdrawal; understand withdrawal symptomatology after exposure to different opioids (particularly fentanyl); understand precipitated opioid withdrawal; understand how co-exposure of other drugs (eg, xylazine and stimulants) influences withdrawal expression; examine individual variation in withdrawal phenotypes; precisely characterise the protracted withdrawal syndrome; identify biomarkers of opioid withdrawal severity; identify predictors of opioid withdrawal severity; and understand which symptoms are most closely associated with treatment attrition or relapse. The US Food and Drug Administration recently established a formal indication for opioid withdrawal that has invigorated interest in drug development for opioid withdrawal management. Action is now needed to support these interests and help industry identify new classes of medications so that real change can be achieved for people with opioid use disorder.

Whole genome sequencing in (recurrent) glioblastoma: challenges related to informed consent procedures and data sharing

Increased use of whole genome sequencing (WGS) in neuro-oncology for diagnostics and research purposes necessitates a renewed conversation about informed consent procedures and governance structures for sharing personal health data. There is currently no consensus on how to obtain informed consent for WGS in this population. In this narrative review, we analyze the formats and contents of frameworks suggested in literature for WGS in oncology and assess their benefits and limitations. We discuss applicability, specific challenges, and legal context for patients with (recurrent) glioblastoma. This population is characterized by the rarity of the disease, extremely limited prognosis, and the correlation of the stage of the disease with cognitive abilities. Since this has implications for the informed consent procedure for WGS, we suggest that the content of informed consent should be tailor-made for (recurrent) glioblastoma patients.

Real world challenges and disparities in the systemic treatment of ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer (OC) is a global health problem, and the mortality-to-incidence ratio is expected to increase, especially in low- and middle-income countries. These regions face disparities in access to OC care, including lack of awareness, limited access to genetic and tumor testing, paucity of surgical expertise, time to approval of novel therapeutics, and treatment costs. By addressing these inequities, the core aim of this paper is to promote action through collaboration in order to overcome these barriers and promote health equity in OC management and treatment.

Profits First, Health Second: The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Global South Comment on "More Pain, More Gain! The Delivery of COVID-19 Vaccines and the Pharmaceutical Industry's Role in Widening the Access Gap"

The pharmaceutical industry has a long history of prioritizing the research and sale of medicines that will yield the largest amount of revenue and placing the health of people second. This gap is especially prevalent in countries of the Global South. This article first explores the dichotomy in research between the Global North and the Global South and then looks at examples of how access to key medicines used in diseases such as HIV, oncology and hepatitis C is limited in the latter group of countries. The role of pharmaceutical companies during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted negotiations for a pandemic accord that would ensure more equity in both research and access when the next pandemic comes. However, efforts by a combination of the pharmaceutical industry and some high-income countries (HICs) are creating serious obstacles to achieving the goal of an accord that would place health over profits.

The translational gap for gene therapies in low- and middle-income countries

Gene therapies are designed to address the root cause of disease. As scientific understanding of disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment improves in tandem with technological innovation, gene therapies have the potential to become safe and effective treatment options for a wide range of genetic and nongenetic diseases. However, as the medical scope of gene therapies expands, consideration must be given to those who will benefit and what proactive steps must be taken to widen development and access potential, particularly in regions carrying a high disease burden.

Determinants of obesity in Latin America

Obesity rates are increasing almost everywhere in the world, although the pace and timing for this increase differ when populations from developed and developing countries are compared. The sharp and more recent increase in obesity rates in many Latin American countries is an example of that and results from regional characteristics that emerge from interactions between multiple factors. Aware of the complexity of enumerating these factors, we highlight eight main determinants (the physical environment, food exposure, economic and political interest, social inequity, limited access to scientific knowledge, culture, contextual behaviour and genetics) and discuss how they impact obesity rates in Latin American countries. We propose that initiatives aimed at understanding obesity and hampering obesity growth in Latin America should involve multidisciplinary, global approaches that consider these determinants to build more effective public policy and strategies, accounting for regional differences and disease complexity at the individual and systemic levels.

Global Equity in Clinical Trials: An ASCO Policy Statement

ASCO is a global professional society representing more than 50,000 physicians, other health care professionals, and advocates in over 100 countries specializing in cancer treatment, diagnosis, prevention, and advocacy. ASCO strives, through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality of patient care, to create a world where cancer is prevented or cured, and every survivor is healthy. In this pursuit, health equity remains the guiding institutional principle that applies to all its activities across the cancer care continuum. This ASCO policy statement emphasizes the urgent need for global equity in clinical trials, aiming to enhance access and representation in cancer research as it not only improves cancer outcomes but also upholds principles of fairness and justice in health care.

Expanding regulatory science: Regulatory complementarity and reliance

Drug regulatory institutions, infrastructures, and systems are becoming increasingly interconnected across national boundaries and increasingly global in outlook. This process is reflected in the broadening and deepening application of the principles and practice of Regulatory Reliance, and parallel initiatives to strengthen the capacities of regulatory institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although these developments are important and constructive, they have tended to be framed in terms of the transfer of systems, knowledge, and skills from relatively "mature" regulatory agencies in high-income countries (HICs) to less-well-resourced regulatory agencies in LMICs. This framing recognizes and foregrounds the considerable practical challenges that many LMIC regulatory agencies face, but in doing so, also backgrounds and underestimates the significance of the different contextual insights that LMIC health researchers and regulators can bring to the regulatory deliberations of their HIC counterparts. This position paper argues that the systematic pursuit, identification, and sharing of these different contextual insights-a dimension of regulatory science that we term "Regulatory Complementarity"-can augment the current practice and goals of Regulatory Reliance, and further invigorate the emerging global regulatory ecosystem.

Allocation of authorship and patient enrollment among global clinical trials in oncology

BACKGROUND

Oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly global in scope. Whether authorship is equitably shared between investigators from high-income countries (HIC) and low-middle/upper-middle incomes countries (LMIC/UMIC) is not well described. The authors conducted this study to understand the allocation of authorship and patient enrollment across all oncology RCTs conducted globally.

METHODS

A cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of phase 3 RCTs (published 2014-2017) that were led by investigators in HIC and recruited patients in LMIC/UMIC.

FINDINGS

During 2014-2017, 694 oncology RCTs were published; 636 (92%) were led by investigators from HIC. Among these HIC-led trials, 186 (29%) enrolled patients in LMIC/UMIC. One-third (33%, 62 of 186) of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC. Forty percent (74 of 186) of RCTs reported patient enrollment by country; in 50% (37 of 74) of these trials, LMIC/UMIC contributed <15% of patients. The relationship between enrollment and authorship proportion is very strong and is comparable between LMIC/UMIC and HIC (Spearman's ρ LMIC/UMIC 0.824, p < .001; HIC 0.823, p < .001). Among the 74 trials that report country enrollment, 34% (25 of 74) have no authors from LMIC/UMIC.

CONCLUSIONS

Among trials that enroll patients in HIC and LMIC/UMIC, authorship appears to be proportional to patient enrollment. This finding is limited by the fact that more than half of RCTs do not report enrollment by country. Moreover, there are important outliers as a significant proportion of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC despite enrolling patients in these countries. The findings in this study reflect a complex global RCT ecosystem that still underserves cancer control outside high-income settings.

Tackling the lack of diversity in cancer research

Despite the clear benefit of studying biological samples from diverse genetic backgrounds and geographical locations, our current knowledge of disease is mostly derived from the study of European-descent individuals. In the cancer field, this is reflected in the poor representation of African and Amerindian/Latino samples in most large public data repositories. This lack of diversity is due to several reasons, but here we focus on (1) the lack of support for studies on non-European populations that are performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and (2) unequal partnerships between scientists in LMICs and those in high-income countries. We argue that expanding access to research funding, increasing the participation of underrepresented scientists in editorial boards and international conferences, facilitating the publication of studies conducted in these countries, and properly acknowledging LMIC researchers' contributions in publications and grant applications will promote equity for scientists working in LMICs. We envisage that this will translate to more impactful research in these countries, which will include more samples from diverse populations. For the cancer field, this will broaden our understanding of pathomechanisms and may help to improve the treatment of patients from all backgrounds.

Translational Nanomedicines Across Human Reproductive Organs Modeling on Microfluidic Chips: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects

Forecasting the consequence of nanoparticles (NPs) and therapeutically significant molecules before materializing for human clinical trials is a mainstay for drug delivery and screening processes. One of the noteworthy obstacles that has prevented the clinical translation of NP-based drug delivery systems and novel drugs is the lack of effective preclinical platforms. As a revolutionary technology, the organ-on-a-chip (OOC), a coalition of microfluidics and tissue engineering, has surfaced as an alternative to orthodox screening platforms. OOC technology recapitulates the structural and physiological features of human organs along with intercommunications between tissues on a chip. The current review discusses the concept of microfluidics and confers cutting-edge fabrication processes for chip designing. We also outlined the advantages of microfluidics in analyzing NPs in terms of characterization, transport, and degradation in biological systems. The review further elaborates the scope and research on translational nanomedicines in human reproductive organs (testis, placenta, uterus, and menstrual cycle) by taking the advantages offered by microfluidics and shedding light on their potential future implications. Finally, we accentuate the existing challenges for clinical translation and scale-up dynamics for microfluidics chips and emphasize its future perspectives.

Participant Recruitment From Low- and Middle-Income Countries for Pivotal Trials of Drugs Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration : A Cross-Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Many participants in clinical trials supporting U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals are recruited from outside the United States, including from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Where participants are recruited for pivotal trials has implications for ethical research conduct and generalizability.

OBJECTIVE

To describe LMIC recruitment for pivotal trials of newly approved drugs for cancer, neurologic disease, and cardiovascular disease.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Pivotal trials of new cancer, cardiovascular, and neurologic drugs approved from 2012 to 2019 matched to ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA records, and publications.

MEASUREMENTS

Host countries and available per country enrollments were extracted. The primary end point was the proportion of pivotal trials enrolling participants in LMICs. The secondary end point was the proportion of pivotal trial participants contributed by LMICs for each indication area.

RESULTS

Data were obtained from 66 new drugs and 144 pivotal clinical trials. All cardiovascular approvals (12 drugs, 29 trials) and neurologic approvals (26 drugs, 54 trials) were analyzed, as well as a random sample of cancer approvals (28 of 85 drugs [33%]) matched to their pivotal trials (61 of 210 trials [29%]). Among the trials, 56% in cancer, 79% in cardiovascular disease, and 56% in neurology recruited from an LMIC. For multicountry trials, country-level enrollment figures were not available for 71 trials (55%). For those reporting per country enrollment, the percentage of participants recruited from LMICs was 8% for cancer trials, 36% for cardiovascular trials, and 17% for neurology trials.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited to FDA-approved drugs in 3 areas, including a sample of cancer drugs. Pivotal trials of nonapproved drugs or drugs for other indications were not captured.

CONCLUSION

Most pivotal trials for FDA-approved drugs recruit from LMICs. Publications and FDA documents generally do not provide country-level data on recruitment.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Global Myeloma Trial Participation and Drug Access in the Era of Novel Therapies

PURPOSE

The globalization of clinical trials has accelerated recent advances in multiple myeloma (MM). However, it is unclear whether trial enrollment locations are reflective of the global burden of MM and whether access to novel therapies is timely and equitable for countries that participate in those trials.

METHODS

To assess this, we characterized where MM trials that led to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals were conducted and determined how often and quickly these drug regimens received approval in their participating trial countries on the basis of country income level and geographic region.

RESULTS

A systematic review was conducted to identify all MM clinical trials that met their primary endpoint, enrolled patients outside the United States, and resulted in FDA approval from 2005 to 2019. A total of 18 pivotal MM clinical trials were identified. High-income countries enrolled patients in 100% (18/18) of the trials identified, whereas upper-middle and lower-middle-income countries were represented in 61% (11/18) and 28% (5/18) of trials, respectively. No patients from low-income countries were enrolled. One trial enrolled patients in sub-Saharan Africa, and no trials enrolled patients in South Asia/Caribbean. For drugs/regimens that were approved in their participating countries, the median time from FDA approval to approval was 10.9 months. There were no drugs approved in lower-middle-income trial countries. MM trials leading to FDA approval are generally run in high-income, European, and Central Asian countries.

CONCLUSION

There are substantial disparities in where novel therapies are evaluated and where they are ultimately approved for use on the basis of income level and geography.

Cancer Groundshot: Building a Robust Cancer Control Platform in Addition To Launching the Cancer Moonshot

Cancer Groundshot is a philosophy that calls for prioritization of strategies in global cancer control. The underlying principle of Cancer Groundshot is that one must ensure access to interventions that are already proven to work before focusing on the development of new interventions. In this article, we discuss the philosophy of Cancer Groundshot as it pertains to priorities in cancer care and research in low- and middle-income countries and the utility of technology in addressing global cancer disparities; we also address disparities seen in high-income countries. The oncology community needs to realign our priorities and focus on improving access to high-value cancer control strategies, rather than allocating resources primarily to the development of technologies that provide only marginal gains at a high cost. There are several "low-hanging fruit" actions that will improve access to quality cancer care in low- and middle-income countries and in high-income countries. Worldwide, cancer morbidity and mortality can be averted by implementing highly effective, low-cost interventions that are already known to work, rather than investing in the development of resource-intensive interventions to which most patients will not have access (i.e., we can use Cancer Groundshot to first save more lives before we focus on the "moonshots").

Data flow within global clinical trials: a scoping review

Objective

To document clinical trial data flow in global clinical trials published in major journals between 2013 and 2021 from Global South to Global North.

Design

Scoping analysis

Methods

We performed a search in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to retrieve randomised clinical trials published between 2013 and 2021 from The BMJ, BMJ Global Health, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, Lancet Global Health and the New England Journal of Medicine. Studies were included if they involved recruitment and author affiliation across different country income groupings using World Bank definitions. The direction of data flow was extracted with a data collection tool using sites of trial recruitment as the starting point and the location of authors conducting statistical analysis as the ending point.

Results

Of 1993 records initially retrieved, 517 studies underwent abstract screening, 348 studies underwent full-text screening and 305 studies were included. Funders from high-income countries were the sole funders of the majority (82%) of clinical trials that recruited across income groupings. In 224 (73.4%) of all assessable studies, data flowed exclusively to authors affiliated with high-income countries or to a majority of authors affiliated with high-income countries for statistical analysis. Only six (3.2%) studies demonstrated data flow to lower middle-income countries and upper middle-income countries for analysis, with only one with data flow to a lower middle-income country.

Conclusions

Global clinical trial data flow demonstrates a Global South to Global North trajectory. Policies should be re-examined to assess how data sharing across country income groupings can move towards a more equitable model.

Ethical considerations in international clinical trial site selection

New medicines and vaccines are predominantly tested in high-income countries. However, as the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted, the populations who can benefit from these interventions are not limited to these wealthier regions. One-third of novel Food and Drug Administration approved drugs, sponsored by large companies, treat infectious diseases like tuberculosis and HIV, which disproportionately affect low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The medicines for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are also relevant to LMIC health needs, as over three-quarters of deaths from NCDs occur in LMICs. There are concerns clinical trial data may not extrapolate across geographical regions, as product effectiveness can vary substantially by region. The pentavalent rotavirus vaccine, for example, had markedly lower efficacy in LMICs. Efficacy variations have also been found for other vaccines and drugs. We argue there are strong ethical arguments for remedying some of this uneven distribution of clinical trial sites by geography and income. Chief among them, is that these disparities can impede equitable access to the benefits of clinical research, such as representation in the evidence base generated to guide prescribing and use of medicines and vaccines. We suggest trial site locations should be made more transparent and for later stage trials their selection should be informed by the global distribution of disease burden targeted by an experimental product. Countries with high prevalence, incidence, severity or infection transmission rates for targeted diseases should have real opportunities to engage in and enrol their populations in trials for novel medicines and vaccines.

Access to COVID-19 Vaccines in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries Hosting Clinical Trials

This cross-sectional study examines authorization and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines recommended by the World Health Organization in the countries where they were tested.