The necessary conduct: Exploratory multiregional clinical trials in East Asia

Characteristics of Asian Participation in Multi-regional Clinical Trials Reviewed for Drug Approval in Japan: Opportunities for Collaboration Between South-East Asia, East Asia, and Japan

Although the percentage of multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) submitted for drug approval in Japan increased significantly since the 2007 publication of the regulatory guideline, "Basic principles on global clinical trials", strategic collaborations between Asian countries will be important to promote MRCTs in accordance with the ICH E17 guideline published in 2017. In this study, characteristics of MRCTs reviewed for drug approval in Japan, especially those with participation by South-East Asia and East Asia, were investigated to explore opportunities for collaborations on global drug development in Asia. More than 90% of reviewed trials were conducted as global MRCTs. In addition to Japan, South-East Asia has participated in various types of MRCTs in terms of total numbers of subjects and countries. However, South-East Asia participation was lower in large-size MRCTs (total sample size ≥ 1000) than in middle- (500 ≤ total sample size < 1000) and small-size MRCTs (total sample size < 500). Furthermore, similar clinical trials for the same indications to the MRCTs without South-East Asia were rarely conducted separately in South-East Asia. Participation of other Asian countries did not affect the percentage of Japanese subjects enrolled in an MRCT, but did significantly increase the percentage of participating Asian subjects. These results suggest that additional opportunities for collaboration on MRCTs may be possible between Japan and other Asian countries, especially more collaborations with South-East Asia in the large-size MRCTs. More data of Asian populations from MRCTs will be useful for exploring an important ethnic factor affecting drug response, and will provide a sound scientific basis in considering the application of the pooled data concept in Asia, as described in the ICH E17 guideline.

Asia-Inclusive Clinical Research and Development Enabled by Translational Science and Quantitative Clinical Pharmacology: Toward a Culture That Challenges the Status Quo

Access lag to innovative therapies in Asian populations continues to present a challenge to global health. Recent progressive changes in the global regulatory landscape, including newer guidelines, are enabling simultaneous global drug development and near-simultaneous global drug registration. The International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E17 guideline outlines general principles for the design and analysis of multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs). We posit that translational research and quantitative clinical pharmacology tools are core enablers for Asia-inclusive global drug development aligned with ICH E17 principles. Assessment of ethnic sensitivity should be initiated early in the development lifecycle to inform the need for, and extent of, Asian phase I ethno-bridging data. Relevant ethno-bridging data may be generated as standalone Asian phase I trials, as part of Western First-In-Human trials, or under accelerated development settings as a lead-in phase in an MRCT. Quantitative understanding of human clearance mechanisms and pharmacogenetic factors is vital to forecasting ethnic sensitivity in drug exposure using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models. Stratification factors to control heterogeneity in MRCTs can be identified by reverse translational research incorporating pharmacometric disease models and model-based meta-analyses. Because epidemiological variations can extend to the molecular level, quantitative systems pharmacology models may be useful in forecasting how molecular variation in therapeutic targets or pathway proteins across populations might impact treatment outcomes. Through prospective evaluation of conservation in drug- and disease-related intrinsic and extrinsic factors, a pooled East Asian region can be implemented in Asia-inclusive MRCTs to maximize efficiency in substantiating evidence of benefit-risk for the region at-large with a Totality of Evidence approach.

Comparison of the Speed of Enrollment for Clinical Trials Conducted by Japanese and Global Pharmaceutical Companies

Since the establishment of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), many countries in the world have rapidly improved their clinical trial performance, and the era has come to compare the clinical trial performance of each country. Japan's clinical trials are considered excellent quality, but costly and slow. In this study, we examined the speed of enrollment period in clinical trials. We surveyed clinical trials from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, covering the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in each global sales ranking (Global 10) and the Japanese sales ranking (Japan 10). Clinical trial data were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov, a clinical trial registration information database, and the speed of participant enrollment (cases/month) was compared for each phase of the trials. The number of clinical trials conducted during the 10 years was 8938 trials for Global 10 and 1439 trials for Japan 10. Comparing the speed of participant enrollment by phase, Japan 10 was significantly faster in phase 1 for both healthy subjects and oncology patients. [Japan 10: Global 10; 15.1 : 12.0 cases/month (healthy subjects) and 5.5 : 1.8 cases/month (oncology), respectively. p < 0.001]. Global 10 was also significantly faster in phase 3. [Japan 10: Global 10; 12.4: 36.9 cases/month, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in phase 2 and phase 4. There was a possibility that the speed of enrollment differed by phase between global companies and Japanese domestic companies.