Ethical Challenges in Biomarker-Driven Drug Development

Regulating Laboratory Tests: What Framework Would Best Support Safety and Validity?

Policy Points With increasing public attention to cases of inaccurate and misleading laboratory-developed tests, there have been calls for regulatory reform. To protect patients from faulty laboratory tests, we need a framework that balances comprehensive test review with laboratory flexibility. The Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT [In Vitro Clinical Test] Development (VALID) Act would have helped ensure laboratory test safety and validity through a much-needed expansion of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight. However, Congress did not pass the VALID Act in 2022, forcing the FDA to start the regulatory reform process on its own.

The ethical aspects of exposome research: a systematic review

In recent years, exposome research has been put forward as the next frontier for the study of human health and disease. Exposome research entails the analysis of the totality of environmental exposures and their corresponding biological responses within the human body. Increasingly, this is operationalized by big-data approaches to map the effects of internal as well as external exposures using smart sensors and multiomics technologies. However, the ethical implications of exposome research are still only rarely discussed in the literature. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the academic literature regarding both the exposome and underlying research fields and approaches, to map the ethical aspects that are relevant to exposome research. We identify five ethical themes that are prominent in ethics discussions: the goals of exposome research, its standards, its tools, how it relates to study participants, and the consequences of its products. Furthermore, we provide a number of general principles for how future ethics research can best make use of our comprehensive overview of the ethical aspects of exposome research. Lastly, we highlight three aspects of exposome research that are most in need of ethical reflection: the actionability of its findings, the epidemiological or clinical norms applicable to exposome research, and the meaning and action-implications of bias.

Why Tumor Genetic Heterogeneity May Require Rethinking Cancer Genesis and Treatment

Tumor genetic heterogeneity, in which individual tumors contain both multiple variant cancer-associated and normal genes, has been widely reported, although its significance has yet to be fully understood. We propose a genetic heterogeneity-based selection-centric hypothesis in which genetic heterogeneity, caused by the temporary reduction of DNA repair efficiency, occurs very early in human development, resulting in a small minority of cells in normal tissues acquiring cancer-associated genes that remain dormant. Cancer develops when precancer cells are selected for by altered tissue microenvironments; similar scenarios occur with development of metastases and therapeutic resistance in established cancer. This suggests that a normal cell selection treatment approach based on preferentially selecting normal cells within tumors may be effective in treating cancer.

Application of orphan drug designation to cancer treatments (2008-2017): a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the USA and EU

OBJECTIVE

To determine differences in the characteristics of cancer drugs designated as orphan drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Identification of all cancer drugs (initial or supplementary indication) with orphan status approved by the FDA between 2008-2017 based on publicly accessible reports. The European public assessment reports (EPAR) was searched to determine whether these FDA-approved drugs were also approved by the EMA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Extraction of active ingredient, trade name, approval date and approved indication from two FDA data sources (Orphan Drug Product Designation Database, Drugs@FDA) and comparison with the same data from EPAR.

RESULTS

The FDA approved 135 cancer drugs with orphan indications that met our inclusion criteria, of which 101 (75%) were also approved by the EMA. 80/101 (79%) were first approved in the USA. Only 41/101 (41%) also received orphan designation by the EMA. 33/101 (33%) were approved for biomarker-based indications in the USA, however, only nine approved cancer drug indications by the EMA were biomarker-derived drugs. 78% (47/60) of approved cancer drugs that were only approved in the USA with orphan status were indicated for solid tumours, 22% (13/60) had indications for non-solid tumours. By contrast, out of those approved cancer drugs that received orphan designation by both agencies, 20% (8/41) were indicated for solid, and 80% (33/41) for non-solid tumours.

CONCLUSIONS

Orphan designation was intended to encourage drug development for rare conditions. This study shows that the FDA approves more cancer drugs with such designations compared with the EMA, especially for subgroups of more prevalent cancers. One reason for the difference could be that the European Union requires demonstration of significant benefit for drugs that target the same indication as a drug already on the market to earn the orphan designation.

Assessment of the Role of Niacin in Managing Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Niacin remains a therapeutic option for patients with cardiovascular disease, but recent studies have called into question the effectiveness of other drugs that increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and evaluate the evidence supporting current US Food and Drug Administration-approved uses of niacin in cardiovascular disease prevention settings.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register (Central), ClinicalTrials.gov, and TrialResults-center, from database inception to October 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

The systematic review included clinical trials involving niacin as a treatment for cardiovascular disease. The meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials reporting niacin's effect, as exposure, on at least 1 long-term cardiovascular disease outcome.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Aggregate study-level data were extracted between November 2017 and January 2018 by 3 independent reviewers, and the analysis was performed in February 2018. Inverse-variance weighted methods were used to produce pooled risk ratios using random-effects models for between-study heterogeneity. Random effects-weighted metaregression analysis was used to assess the association of change in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with the log risk ratio of the pooled results.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease mortality, and other cardiovascular events, including acute coronary syndrome, fatal and nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events.

RESULTS

Of 119 clinical trials, 17 documented niacin's effect on at least 1 cardiovascular disease outcome. The meta-analysis included 35 760 patients with histories of cardiovascular disease or dyslipidemia. Cumulative evidence found no preventive association of niacin with cardiovascular outcomes in secondary prevention. Stratified meta-analysis showed an association of niacin monotherapy with reduction of some cardiovascular events among patients without statin treatment (acute coronary syndrome: relative risk, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; stroke: relative risk, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; revascularization: relative risk, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.72). These results were mainly derived from 2 trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Niacin may have some use in lipid control for secondary prevention as monotherapy, perhaps in patients intolerant to statins, but evidence is from older studies on a population potentially not representative of current-day patients.

Process Improvement for Maximized Therapeutic Innovation Outcome

Deconvoluting key biological mechanisms forms the framework for therapeutic discovery. Strategies that enable effective translation of those insights along the development and regulatory path ultimately drive validated clinical application in patients and populations. Accordingly, parity in What vs. How we transform novel mechanistic insights into therapeutic paradigms is essential in achieving success. Aligning molecular discovery with innovations in structures and processes along the discovery-development-regulation-utilization continuum maximizes the return on public and private investments for next-generation solutions in managing health and disease.