Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development for Rare Diseases in Neurology: Contributions and Opportunities

Demographic Diversity of Clinical Trials for Therapeutic Drug Products: A Systematic Review of Recently Published Articles, 2017-2022

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encourages the use of enrollment practices that will lead to clinical trials that reflect the population most likely to use the therapeutic product (drug or biologic), if approved. In doing so, the benefit-risk profile of the product may be assessed more completely and offer patients and their health care providers a better understanding of the drug profile and greater confidence in clinical trial results. The objective of this systematic review was to assess recent literature on the demographic diversity of clinical trial participants, describe the methods used in defining clinical trial diversity, and address knowledge gaps to enhance clinical trial diversity. Our literature search initially yielded 246 articles. After applying our eligibility criteria, we conducted a full-text review and analyzed the contents of the 28 remaining articles in our systematic review. Eleven (39%) of the 28 articles used a reference standard to compare the participation of populations in clinical trials to assess diversity. The majority of the 28 articles reported on adult participants; only 5 included pediatric populations. Most articles found that women and minority populations were underrepresented in clinical trials. Some articles proposed solutions to improve clinical trial diversity; however, several did not comment on clinical trial diversity. Despite a growing emphasis on demographic diversity in research, certain populations continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. There is a need to standardize the definition of diversity in clinical trials. Future research into effective enrollment approaches and appropriate reference standards could improve demographic diversity.

Rare oncology therapeutics: review of clinical pharmacology package of drug approvals (2019-2023) by US FDA, best practices and recommendations

There are many challenges with rare diseases drug development and rare oncology indications are not different. To understand the regulatory landscape as it relates to application of clinical pharmacology principles in rare oncology product development, we reviewed publicly available information of 39 approvals by US FDA between January 2019 and March 2023. The objective was to understand the expected clinical pharmacology studies and knowledge base in such approvals. Model informed drug development (MIDD) applications were also reviewed, as such approaches are expected to play a critical role in filling clinical pharmacology gaps in rare oncology, where number of clinical trials and size of these trials will perhaps continue to be small. The findings highlighted how clinical pharmacology contributed to the evidence of effectiveness, dose optimization and elucidation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting drug's behavior. Clinical pharmacology studies were often integrated with modeling in many of the NDAs/BLAs. Of the post marketing requirements (PMR) received, 18% were for dose optimization, 49% for DDI, 8% for QTc, 49% for specific population, and 5% for food effect. Two post marketing commitments (PMC) were issued for immunogenicity of the 11 biologics submissions. 15% (6 of 39) of the submissions used maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to advance their molecule into Phase 2 studies. Of them 3 approvals received PMR for dose optimization. 3 + 3 was the most prevalent Phase 1 design with use in 74% of the New Drug Applications (NDA)/Biologic License Applications (BLA) reviewed. Rest used innovative approaches such as BLRM, BOIN or mTPi, with BLRM being the most common. Seamless clinical pharmacology and MIDD approaches are paramount for rare oncology drug development.

Quantitative Systems Pharmacology for Rare Disease Drug Development

Though hundreds of drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating various rare diseases, most rare diseases still lack FDA-approved therapeutics. To identify the opportunities for developing therapies for these diseases, the challenges of demonstrating the efficacy and safety of a drug for treating a rare disease are highlighted herein. Quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) has increasingly been used to inform drug development; our analysis of QSP submissions received by FDA showed that there were 121 submissions as of 2022, for informing rare disease drug development across development phases and therapeutic areas. Examples of published models for inborn errors of metabolism, non-malignant hematological disorders, and hematological malignancies were briefly reviewed to shed light on use of QSP in drug discovery and development for rare diseases. Advances in biomedical research and computational technologies can potentially enable QSP simulation of the natural history of a rare disease in the context of its clinical presentation and genetic heterogeneity. With this function, QSP may be used to conduct in-silico trials to overcome some of the challenges in rare disease drug development. QSP may play an increasingly important role in facilitating development of safe and effective drugs for treating rare diseases with unmet medical needs.

Clinical pharmacology information in regulatory submissions and labeling: A comparative analysis of orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA

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.