Comparison of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Processes for Marketing Applications Between the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) began collaboration on Good Clinical Practice (GCP) inspections for marketing applications since 2009. The main characteristics of the GCP inspection processes between FDA and EMA were never evaluated. This is the first analysis comparing the GCP inspection processes between the two agencies.

METHODS

We examined and analyzed the key characteristics of the GCP inspection processes, including the geographical distribution, inspection types and timelines from application submission to final inspection reporting for marketing applications from September 2009 through December 2015.

RESULTS

Fifty-five shared applications were included for analysis. For these applications, a total of 433 GCP inspections were conducted in 47 countries. Most clinical investigator (CI) inspections were conducted in regions outside of each agency's own regulatory jurisdiction, while most sponsor/contract research organization (CRO) inspections were conducted in the U.S. by both agencies. Twenty-eight shared applications included common sites inspected by both agencies. There were 15 joint inspections conducted for seven of these applications and the remaining applications had common sites inspected by both agencies at separate times. Of the joint inspections, 73% were conducted in the U.S and 20% in the E.U. The median time from submission of an application to generation of final inspection reports was 232 days for FDA and 204 days for EMA, with no significant differences noted among applications with and without common sites.

CONCLUSION

The inspection processes and timelines between the two agencies were similar, providing support for continued FDA-EMA GCP collaboration.

Action for Increasing Diversity, Market Access, and Capacity in Oncology Registration Trials—Is Africa the Answer? Report From a Satellite Session of the Accelerating Anti-Cancer Agent Development and Validation Workshop

Patients of African ancestry are not well-represented in cancer clinical trials despite bearing a disproportionate share of mortality both in United States and Africa. We describe key stakeholder perspectives and priorities related to bringing early-stage cancer clinical trials to Africa and outline essential action steps. Increasing Diversity, Market Access, and Capacity in Oncology Registration Trials—Is Africa the Answer? satellite session was organized at 2021 Accelerating Anti-Cancer Agent Development and Validation Workshop. Panelists included representatives of African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer, Uganda Cancer Institute, Uganda Women's Cancer Support Organization, BIO Ventures for Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the US Food and Drug Administration, Nigeria's National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control, Bayer, and Genentech, with moderators from ASCO and American Cancer Society. Key discussion themes and resulting action steps were agreed upon by all participants. Panelists agreed that increasing diversity in cancer clinical trials by including African patients is key to ensuring novel drugs are safe and effective across populations. They underscored the importance of equity in clinical trial access for patients in Africa. Panelists discussed their values related to access and barriers to opening clinical trials in Africa and described innovative solutions from their work aimed at overcoming these obstacles. Multisectoral collaboration efforts that allow leveraging of limited resources and result in sustainable capacity building and mutually beneficial long-term partnerships were discussed as key to outlined action steps. The panel discussion resulted in valuable insights about key stakeholder values and priorities related to bringing early-stage clinical trials to Africa, as well as specific actions for each stakeholder group.

Tackling Challenging Data Integrity Topics in 2020: Update on Good Clinical Practice Perspectives from the US FDA and MHRA UK

With the globalization of clinical trials, regulators have increased collaboration to evaluate the adequacy of clinical trial conduct and to optimize regulatory oversight. The 2020 joint Good Clinical Practice (GCP) symposium of the US Food and Drug Administration and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency provided the agencies' perspectives on the challenges in ensuring data quality in novel clinical trial designs and the importance of the management and documentation of protocol deviations, sponsor oversight of clinical trials, and use of electronic source data, including electronic health records. This paper summarizes considerations of both agencies on these topics, along with case examples. This paper touches upon considerations when using real-world data to support regulatory decisions. It also discusses the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on clinical trial conduct and underscores the importance of well-designed, resilient, and adaptable systems for GCP compliance and data integrity.

Challenges with Novel Clinical Trial Designs: Master Protocols

The 2018 Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development (AAADV) Workshop assembled a panel of experts for an in-depth discussion session to present "Challenges with Novel Clinical Trial Designs." This panel offered assessments of the challenges faced by industry, the FDA, investigators, institutional review boards, and patients. The panel focused on master protocols, which include umbrella trials, platform trials, and basket trials. Umbrella trials and platform trials share many commonalities, whereas basket trials are more distinct. Umbrella and platform trials are generally designed with multiple arms where patients of the same histology or other unifying characteristics are enrolled into different arms and multiple investigational agents are evaluated in a single protocol. In contrast, basket studies generally enroll patients with different tumor types based on the presence of a specific mutation or biomarker regardless of histology; these trials may include expansion cohorts. These novel designs offer the promise of expedited drug assessment and approval, but they also place new challenges on all the stakeholders involved in the drug development process. Only by identifying the challenges of these complex, innovative clinical trial designs and highlighting challenges from each perspective can we begin to address these challenges. The 2018 AAADV Workshop convened a panel of experts from relevant disciplines to highlight the challenges that are created by master protocols, and, where appropriate, offer strategies to address these challenges.

Romiplostim for the treatment of chronic immune (idiopathic) thrombocytopenic purpura

PURPOSE

On August 22, 2008, Romiplostim (Nplate for Injection) received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic immune (idiopathic) thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) who have had an insufficient response to corticosteroids, immunoglobulins, or splenectomy. This report summarizes the FDA analyses of the clinical data supporting this approval.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The FDA reviewed data from two double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies, an uncontrolled extension study, and supportive studies. In the controlled studies, enrolled patients had completed at least one prior treatment for chronic ITP and had a platelet count < or = 30 x 10(9)/L. One study enrolled patients who had undergone splenectomy; the other enrolled patients who had not undergone splenectomy. The primary endpoint in both controlled studies was durable platelet response.

RESULTS

Overall, 125 patients were randomized in the controlled studies. A durable platelet response was observed in 61% of nonsplenectomized patients and 38% of patients who had undergone splenectomy. One placebo group patient achieved a durable platelet response. Serious hemorrhage events were reported in 10% of placebo recipients and 6% of romiplostim recipients. In the extension study, patients received romiplostim for a median of 60 weeks and a maximum of 96 weeks; the majority of patients maintained platelet counts > or = 50 x 10(9)/L throughout the study. Major safety findings pertained to a risk for bone marrow reticulin formation and worsened thrombocytopenia following romiplostim discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

The FDA approved romiplostim for use among certain patients with chronic ITP. This approval included a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks.

Carbapenems in pediatrics

Antimicrobial resistance is increasing among bacterial pathogens. In particular, organisms producing extended spectrum beta-lactamase enzymes (ESBLs) and AmpC chromosomal beta-lactamase enzymes are resistant to third generation cephalosporins and pose a formidable challenge in the management of seriously ill patients. Carbapenems are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics with stability against ESBL and AmpC chromosomal beta-lactamases. They are well tolerated by patients. This review will examine the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of two carbapenems imipenem and meropenem and discuss their clinical use in children. References are limited to the English language and extend back to 1980. Sources include computerized databases such as MEDLINE searched using PubMed, and bibliographies of recent articles and books. Approximately 50% of the articles initially reviewed are included in the bibliography. Carbapenems are efficacious in the treatment of a variety of bacterial infections including meningitis, pneumonia, intraabdominal infections, bone, joint and urinary tract infections. The broad spectrum activity and comparatively low toxicity of carbapenems make them valuable therapeutic agents in the treatment of seriously ill patients with bacterial infections. These agents should be used judiciously in order to minimize the risk for development of carbapenem-resistant pathogens.