A New Paradigm. “Learn - Learn More”; Dose-Exposure-Response at the Center of Drug Development and Regulatory Approval

Drug Repurposing for Targeting Myeloid-Derived Suppressor-Cell-Generated Immunosuppression in Ovarian Cancer: A Literature Review of Potential Candidates

The lethality of patients with ovarian cancer (OC) remains high. Current treatment strategies often do not lead to the desired outcome due to the development of therapy resistance, resulting in high relapse rates. Additionally, clinical trials testing immunotherapy against OC have failed to reach significant results to date. The OC tumor microenvironment and specifically myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) are known to generate immunosuppression and inhibit the anti-tumor immune response following immunotherapy treatment. Our review aims to characterize potential candidate treatments to target MDSC in OC through drug-repurposing. A literature search identified repurposable compounds with evidence of their suppressing the effect of MDSC. A total of seventeen compounds were withheld, of which four were considered the most promising. Lurbinectedin, metformin, celecoxib, and 5-azacytidine have reported preclinical effects on MDSC and clinical evidence in OC. They have all been approved for a different indication, characterizing them as the most promising candidates for repurposing to treat patients with OC.

Optimized Dosing: The Next Step in Precision Medicine in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

In oncology, and especially in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), dose optimization is often a neglected part of precision medicine. Many drugs are still being administered in "one dose fits all" regimens or based on parameters that are often only minor determinants for systemic exposure. These dosing approaches often introduce additional pharmacokinetic variability and do not add to treatment outcomes. Fortunately, pharmacological knowledge is increasing, providing valuable information regarding the potential of, for example, therapeutic drug monitoring. This article focuses on the evidence for the most promising and easily implemented optimized dosing approaches for the small-molecule inhibitors, chemotherapeutic agents, and monoclonal antibodies as treatment options currently approved for NSCLC. Despite limitations such as investigations having been conducted in oncological diseases other than NSCLC or the retrospective origin of many analyses, an alternative dosing regimen could be beneficial for treatment outcomes, prescriber convenience, or financial burden on healthcare systems. This review of the literature provides recommendations on the implementation of dose optimization and advice regarding promising strategies that deserve further research in NSCLC.

Towards next-generation personalization of tacrolimus treatment: a review on advanced diagnostic and therapeutic approaches

The benefit of personalized medicine is that it allows the customization of drug therapy - maximizing efficacy while avoiding side effects. Genetic polymorphisms are one of the major contributors to interindividual variability. Currently, the only gold standard for applying personalized medicine is dose titration. Because of technological advancements, converting genotypic data into an optimum dose has become easier than in earlier years. However, for many medications, determining a personalized dose may be difficult, leading to a trial-and-error method. On the other hand, the technologically oriented pharmaceutical industry has a plethora of smart drug delivery methods that are underutilized in customized medicine. This article elaborates the genetic polymorphisms of tacrolimus as case study, and extensively covers the diagnostic and therapeutic technologies which aid in the delivery of personalized tacrolimus treatment for better clinical outcomes, thereby providing a new strategy for implementing personalized medicine.

A Systematic Assessment of US Food and Drug Administration Dosing Recommendations For Drug Development Programs Amenable to Response-Guided Titration

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.

Precision Dosing Priority Criteria: Drug, Disease, and Patient Population Variables

The administered dose of a drug modulates whether patients will experience optimal effectiveness, toxicity including death, or no effect at all. Dosing is particularly important for diseases and/or drugs where the drug can decrease severe morbidity or prolong life. Likewise, dosing is important where the drug can cause death or severe morbidity. Since we believe there are many examples where more precise dosing could benefit patients, it is worthwhile to consider how to prioritize drug-disease targets. One key consideration is the quality of information available from which more precise dosing recommendations can be constructed. When a new more precise dosing scheme is created and differs significantly from the approved label, it is important to consider the level of proof necessary to either change the label and/or change clinical practice. The cost and effort needed to provide this proof should also be considered in prioritizing drug-disease precision dosing targets. Although precision dosing is being promoted and has great promise, it is underutilized in many drugs and disease states. Therefore, we believe it is important to consider how more precise dosing is going to be delivered to high priority patients in a timely manner. If better dosing schemes do not change clinical practice resulting in better patient outcomes, then what is the use? This review paper discusses variables to consider when prioritizing precision dosing candidates while highlighting key examples of precision dosing that have been successfully used to improve patient care.

Body of evidence and approaches applied in the clinical development programme of fixed-dose combinations in the European Union from 2010 to 2016

AIMS

To provide insights into the clinical development pathway for fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), to consider strategies, and to elucidate the path to approval by assessing the body of evidence, as summarized in the European Public Assessment Reports.

METHODS

The main resource was the European Public Assessment Reports for 36 FDCs, which included 239 clinical trials with 157 514 patients. The analyses focused on how prior knowledge of the active substances or combination, use of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling, and clinical trial design choice impact the size and strategy of the clinical development programme.

RESULTS

FDC products primarily comprised 2 previously approved components (21/36, 71%) and had only 1 approved combination (21/36, 71%). Utilizing previously approved active substances resulted in fewer clinical trials, arms and patients, but FDC doses studied in the clinical development programme. Furthermore, dose-finding trials were performed for less than half of FDCs consisting of 2 previously approved active substances. The standard approach to demonstrate contribution of active substances was through a factorial or single combination study. Finally, the use of pharmacokinetic modelling showed a significant decrease in the number of FDC doses studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The field of FDCs seems to be on the rise, utilizing new molecular entities, prior knowledge and re-profiling drugs. However, a way to move FDC development forward might be through new regulatory and scientific paradigms, in which it is encouraged to utilize model-based approaches to develop FDCs with multiple dose levels and dose ratios for exposure-based treatment that will enable personalization.

The evolution of clinical trials: Can we address the challenges of the future?

The authors describe key challenges facing the clinical trials community and propose solutions to these issues, including the role the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative can play in addressing these issues. Specifically, the authors reflect on clinical trial globalization and the harmonization of frameworks and requirements across regions; the challenges associated with balancing the desire for external validity, pragmatic trials, and precision medicine; clinical trial transparency; and operational complexity and the expense of clinical trials. By addressing these challenges, future clinical trials will be more feasible, relevant, and credible, and support both the continuing altruistic contributions of patients and the collection of more meaningful data.