The Role of Master Protocols in Pediatric Drug Development

Advocating for drug development in newborn infants

Neonatal care needs more robust guidance on pharmacotherapy, (formulation, dosage regimen, safety and efficacy information). This requires structured advocacy. We therefore discuss advocacy related to improving information about medicines including current practices, clinical trials, the current setting, and trial preparedness. This steps can improve neonatal drug development by generating evidence, particularly if a programmatic approach (identify dosing, eligibility criteria, and outcomes) to evidence generation is followed. Trial design should be guided by the intended use of the medicine and the benefits/risks that the study participant is exposed to. Regulatory trials (explanatory, controlled environment, internal validity, endpoints reflect clinically important outcomes, strong causal evidence) are sometimes necessary. However, some research questions are best addressed with informative trials. In either case, trial design can be supported by real world data and evidence, extrapolation from other subpopulations, or physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling. Data management, safety reporting, and management of drugs should be specified and proportionate. Trial design and conduct also necessitate awareness of Good Clinical Practice specific to neonates. Relevant aspects include protocol and trial design, research skills and interactions with Ethics Committees or Institutional Research Boards, capacities and competences needed within the research team, and aspects related to consent and recruitment.

Preventing progression of preschool wheezing to asthma: Opportunities for intervention

Recurrent wheezing in preschool children is heterogeneous and results from numerous genetic and environmental risk factors, which result in the same final clinical manifestation of acute episodes of wheezing but have distinct underlying mechanisms. Effective disease-modifying approaches, therefore, need to target the pathways driving the symptoms. We have good evidence to show that targeting airway eosinophilia alone in early-life preschool wheezing and using inhaled corticosteroids is not disease-modifying. Although airway remodelling develops early in preschool wheezing, the challenge is identifying suitable treatments for structural airway changes. There is increasing evidence for the role of lower airway bacterial infection contributing to wheeze episodes, but clinical trials investigating the impact of targeted antibiotic treatment on disease modification are needed. There is also increasing data supporting an association between lower airway neutrophilia and wheezing in a subgroup of preschool children, but direct causation and the role of neutrophil function remain unknown. Finally, there is encouraging preliminary data for the role of inactivated mixed bacterial lysates in children with non-allergic, infection-associated wheeze episodes, but the impact on longer-term outcomes and their mechanism of action is unknown. This review outlines a range of potential novel targets and approaches that may enable secondary prevention of asthma from preschool wheezing. In parallel, the potential for harm when interventions are introduced indiscriminately is highlighted. Some of the challenges that need to be addressed, including trial designs allowing tailored interventions, the need for non-invasive biomarkers for targeted interventions, and ensuring extended and long-term follow-up after intervention, are highlighted.

Pediatric oncology drug development and dosage optimization

Oncology drug discovery and development has always been an area facing many challenges. Phase 1 oncology studies are typically small, open-label, sequential studies enrolling a small sample of adult patients (i.e., 3-6 patients/cohort) in dose escalation. Pediatric evaluations typically lag behind the adult development program. The pediatric starting dose is traditionally referenced on the recommended phase 2 dose in adults with the incorporation of body size scaling. The size of the study is also small and dependent upon the prevalence of the disease in the pediatric population. Similar to adult development, the dose is escalated or de-escalated until reaching the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) that also provides desired biological activities or efficacy. The escalation steps and identification of MTD are often rule-based and do not incorporate all the available information, such as pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), tolerability and efficacy data. Therefore, it is doubtful if the MTD approach is optimal to determine the dosage. Hence, it is important to evaluate whether there is an optimal dosage below the MTD, especially considering the emerging complexity of combination therapies and the long-term tolerability and safety of the treatments. Identification of an optimal dosage is also vital not only for adult patients but for pediatric populations as well. Dosage-finding is much more challenging for pediatric populations due to the limited patient population and differences among the pediatric age range in terms of maturation and ontogeny that could impact PK. Many sponsors defer the pediatric strategy as they are often perplexed by the challenges presented by pediatric oncology drug development (model of action relevancy to pediatric population, budget, timeline and regulatory requirements). This leads to a limited number of approved drugs for pediatric oncology patients. This review article provides the current regulatory landscape, incentives and how they impact pediatric drug discovery and development. We also consider different pediatric cancers and potential clinical trial challenges/opportunities when designing pediatric clinical trials. An outline of how quantitative methods such as pharmacometrics/modelling & simulation can support the dosage-finding and justification is also included. Finally, we provide some reflections that we consider helpful to accelerate pediatric drug discovery and development.

Current state-of-the-art and gaps in platform trials: 10 things you should know, insights from EU-PEARL

Platform trials bring the promise of making clinical research more efficient and more patient centric. While their use has become more widespread, including their prominent role during the COVID-19 pandemic response, broader adoption of platform trials has been limited by the lack of experience and tools to navigate the critical upfront planning required to launch such collaborative studies. The European Union-Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatform (EU-PEARL) initiative has produced new methodologies to expand the use of platform trials with an overarching infrastructure and services embedded into Integrated Research Platforms (IRPs), in collaboration with patient representatives and through consultation with U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency stakeholders. In this narrative review, we discuss the outlook for platform trials in Europe, including challenges related to infrastructure, design, adaptations, data sharing and regulation. Documents derived from the EU-PEARL project, alongside a literature search including PubMed and relevant grey literature (e.g., guidance from regulatory agencies and health technology agencies) were used as sources for a multi-stage collaborative process through which the 10 more important points based on lessons drawn from the EU-PEARL project were developed and summarised as guidance for the setup of platform trials. We conclude that early involvement of critical stakeholder such as regulatory agencies or patients are critical steps in the implementation and later acceptance of platform trials. Addressing these gaps will be critical for attaining the full potential of platform trials for patients.

Funding

Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking with support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA.

Queries Raised During Oncology Business Pipeline Meetings at the European Medicines Agency: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) offers guidance and support to pharmaceutical companies through bilateral discussions called business pipeline meetings (BPMs). An analysis of BPMs in oncology over a 5-year period was conducted to identify common topics and recurring queries. The documents of all BPMs available at the EMA regarding the field of oncology from January 1, 2018, to Decemer 31, 2022, were reviewed. For every query, a main category was assigned, and in case of multiple relevant topics, a secondary category was appointed too. For all queries, the follow-up offered by the EMA was documented, and whether the requested information was available. Subsequently, all queries were scanned for overlapping topics between meetings. From 2018 to 2022, 31 BPMs were held between the EMA and pharmaceutical companies to discuss oncology-related questions, for a total of 397 queries raised. They were classified into 24 topics, of which 15 were common topics (n ≥ 10 queries) with regulatory pathways/guidelines and trial design having the most queries. Post-BPM actions were taken or recommended by the EMA for 41.3% of queries, such as referrals to scientific advice or published guidelines. Forty-three queries were raised at more than one BPM. Targeted therapy, companion diagnostics, institutional collaboration, trial design, and regulatory pathways/guidelines were the most discussed topics in oncology BPMs, with molecular developments being the common denominator. Creating Q&A documents, publishing new guidelines, providing a framework for discussions, and questionnaire-based follow-up research can improve the quality of BPMs, and the accessibility of the information requested during the BPMs.

Comparison of the Latin America Regulation Landscape and International Reference Health Authorities to Hasten Drug Registration and Clinical Research Applications

INTRODUCTION

Promptly providing new drugs to fulfill unmet medical needs requires changes in drug development and registration processes. Health Authorities (HAs) considered as reference due to their experience and acknowledgement (Food and Drug Administration [FDA] among others) already consider innovative clinical trial (CT) designs and flexible approval procedures, but Latin America (LATAM) regulations are still far. A comparison was performed to identify gaps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CT requirements for drug Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) and CT approval regulations were compared between LATAM and reference HAs (FDA/European Medicines Agency [EMA]/Health-Canada/Swissmedic/Therapeutic Goods Administration [TGA]/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency [PMDA]), as of August 2022. Procedure included reference HAs regulations review, item selection, identification in LATAM regulations, and International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guidelines (ICH-E6[R2]/ICH-E8[R1]) implementation revision.

RESULTS

For MAA, specific application requirements or ICH guideline M4(R4) on common technical document (CTD) adoption are generally stated, and phase-I/III performance is mandatory (explicitly/implicitly). Faster patient access procedures are infrequent: Priority-drug programs, conditional authorizations, or expedited procedures are scarce or non-existent. Regulatory reliance procedures are adopted through different pathways. Regarding CT approval, innovative/complex CT designs are not prohibited but usually omitted. Some countries implemented adapted CT conducting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early scientific advice meetings (HA-sponsor) are occasionally considered. Most countries are not formally ICH-joined.

CONCLUSIONS

LATAM regulations must adapt to new regulatory standards (FDA/EMA/ICH) through implementation of frequent updates, reliance/expedited procedures, early HA-sponsor interactions, innovative/complex CTs, mandatory phase-III reaching elimination, and decentralized elements for CT conducting.

The State of Clinical Trials in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The gap between available biologic and small molecule therapy for inflammatory bowel disease for children and adults remains large. At present only 2 anti-TNF agents are licensed for pediatric use compared with multiple other agents with different mechanisms of action being used in adults. The reasons are many but largely revolve around the inadequate acceptance of adult efficacy data to children, and the reluctance of industry to commit to early pediatric drug development for fear of inadequate return on investment. We suggest common sense steps that need to be taken to improve this situation.

Targeting shared molecular etiologies to accelerate drug development for rare diseases

Rare diseases affect over 400 million people worldwide and less than 5% of rare diseases have an approved treatment. Fortunately, the number of underlying disease etiologies is far less than the number of diseases, because many rare diseases share a common molecular etiology. Moreover, many of these shared molecular etiologies are therapeutically actionable. Grouping rare disease patients for clinical trials based on the underlying molecular etiology, rather than the traditional, symptom-based definition of disease, has the potential to greatly increase the number of patients gaining access to clinical trials. Basket clinical trials based on a shared molecular drug target have become common in the field of oncology and have been accepted by regulatory agencies as a basis for drug approvals. Implementation of basket clinical trials in the field of rare diseases is seen by multiple stakeholders-patients, researchers, clinicians, industry, regulators, and funders-as a solution to accelerate the identification of new therapies and address patient's unmet needs.