The qualification of an enrichment biomarker for clinical trials targeting early stages of Parkinson’s disease

As therapeutic trials target early stages of Parkinson’s disease (PD), appropriate patient selection based purely on clinical criteria poses significant challenges. Members of the Critical Path for Parkinson’s Consortium formally submitted documentation to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) supporting the use of Dopamine Transporter (DAT) neuroimaging in early PD. Regulatory documents included a comprehensive literature review, a proposed analysis plan of both observational and clinical trial data, and an assessment of biomarker reproducibility and reliability. The research plan included longitudinal analysis of the Parkinson Research Examination of CEP-1347 Trial (PRECEPT) and the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) study to estimate the degree of enrichment achieved and impact on future trials in subjects with early motor PD. The presence of reduced striatal DAT binding based on visual reads of single photon emission tomography (SPECT) scans in early motor PD subjects was an independent predictor of faster decline in UPDRS Parts II and III as compared to subjects with scans without evidence of dopaminergic deficit (SWEDD) over 24 months. The EMA issued in 2018 a full Qualification Opinion for the use of DAT as an enrichment biomarker in PD trials targeting subjects with early motor symptoms. Exclusion of SWEDD subjects in future clinical trials targeting early motor PD subjects aims to enrich clinical trial populations with idiopathic PD patients, improve statistical power, and exclude subjects who are unlikely to progress clinically from being exposed to novel test therapeutics

Qualification opinion of novel methodologies in the predementia stage of Alzheimer's disease: Cerebro-spinal-fluid related biomarkers for drugs affecting amyloid burden - Regulatory considerations by European Medicines Agency focusing in improving benefit/risk in regulatory trials

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) in London is responsible for the Regulatory review of new medicinal products for Marketing Authorisation, through which pharmaceutical companies may obtain first Marketing Authorisation and subsequent Variations valid throughout the EU and EFTA. The qualification opinion of novel methodologies is a new procedure where applicants can obtain scientific advice on new methodologies for regulatory clinical trials of efficacy of new compounds. It will help benefit/risk assessment of the CHMP. The definition of prodromal AD is acceptable. The "Dubois Criteria" as criteria to define the population must be validated in full at the time of the submission of the dossiers. Including a positive CSF biomarker profile is considered predictive for the evaluation of the AD-dementia type. However, although high CSF tau and low CSF 4 beta 42 are predictive of Alzheimer's disease, the criterion "positive CSF tau/4 beta 42 ratio" is not well defined. The qualification of biomarkers in the pre-dementia stage of Alzheimer's disease will allow better inclusion criteria of patients in pre-dementia trials in which the benefit/risk is higher for treatment with these novel compounds. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved

The European Medicines Agency's strategies to meet the challenges of Alzheimer disease

Regulatory agencies have a key role in facilitating the development of new drugs for Alzheimer disease, particularly given the challenges associated with early intervention. Here, we highlight the strategies of the European Medicines Agency to help address such challenges

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products for Rare Diseases: State of Play of Incentives Supporting Development in Europe

In 2008, the European Union introduced the Advanced Medicines Regulation aiming to improve regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). We applied the ATMPs classification definitions in this Regulation to understand the link of this emerging group of medicinal products and the use of the Orphan Regulation. A total of 185 products that can be classified as ATMPs based on this Regulation have been submitted for orphan designation. Prior to its introduction in 2008, 4.5% of the products submitted for orphan designation met these criteria. This percentage went up to 15% after 2008. We analyzed several parameters associated with active ATMP ODDs focusing on sponsor type and EU-Member State origin, therapeutic area targeted, and ATMP classification [i.e., somatic cell therapy medicinal product, tissue-engineered product (TEP), or gene therapy medicinal product (GTMP)] and the use of regulatory services linked to incentives such as the use of protocol assistance (PA) and other Committees [Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) and the Pediatric Committee]. The aim here was to gain insight on the use of different services. The UK submits the largest number of ATMPs for ODD representing ~30% of the total to date. Few submissions have been received from central and Eastern European Member States as well as some of the larger Member States such as Germany (3.6%). ATMPs ODDs were primarily GTMPs (48.7%) and SCTMPs (43.3%). TEPs only represented 8% of all submissions for this medicinal class. This is different from non-ODDs ATMPs where GTMPs make only 20% of ATMPs. A total of 11.7% of ATMP ODDs had received formal CAT classification. A total of 29.8% of all orphan drug (OD) ATMPs requested PA. A total of 71.8% did not have an agreed pediatric investigation plan (PIP). Four products (Glybera one PA; Zalmoxis two; Holoclar one; Strimvelis three) have received a marketing authorization (MAA) and a 10-year market exclusivity. Strimvelis also completed their PIP, which was compliant and received the additional 2-year extension to their 10-year market exclusivity. One OD ATMP (Cerepro) received a negative opinion for MAA. The use of services linked to incentives offered by different legislations for ATMP ODDs is low, indicating a need for increasing awareness

Are novel, non‐randomised analytic methods fit for decision‐making? The need for prospective, controlled and transparent validation

Real World Data (RWD) and patient‐level data from completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are becoming available for secondary analysis on an unprecedented scale. A range of novel methodologies and study designs have been proposed for their analysis or combination. However, to make novel analytical methods acceptable for regulators and other decision makers will require their testing and validation in broadly the same way one would evaluate a new drug: prospectively, well‐controlled and according to pre‐agreed plan. From a European regulators’ perspective, the established methods qualification advice procedure with active participation of patient groups and other decision makers is an efficient and transparent platform for the development and validation of novel study designs

Clinical Outcome Assessments: Conceptual Foundation—Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment – Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force

AbstractAn outcome assessment, the patient assessment used in an endpoint, is the measuring instrument that provides a rating or score (categorical or continuous) that is intended to represent some aspect of the patient’s health status. Outcome assessments are used to define efficacy endpoints when developing a therapy for a disease or condition. Most efficacy endpoints are based on specified clinical assessments of patients. When clinical assessments are used as clinical trial outcomes, they are called clinical outcome assessments (COAs). COAs include any assessment that may be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. COAs must be well-defined and possess adequate measurement properties to demonstrate (directly or indirectly) the benefits of a treatment. In contrast, a biomarker assessment is one that is subject to little, if any, patient motivational or rater judgmental influence. This is the first of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment – Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. This report provides foundational definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement principles. The foundation provided in this report includes what it means to demonstrate a beneficial effect, how assessments of patients relate to the objective of showing a treatment’s benefit, and how these assessments are used in clinical trial endpoints. In addition, this report describes intrinsic attributes of patient assessments and clinical trial factors that can affect the properties of the measurements. These factors should be considered when developing or refining assessments. These considerations will aid investigators designing trials in their choice of using an existing assessment or developing a new outcome assessment. Although the focus of this report is on the development of a new COA to define endpoints in a clinical trial, these principles may be applied more generally. A critical element in appraising or developing a COA is to describe the treatment’s intended benefit as an effect on a clearly identified aspect of how a patient feels or functions. This aspect must have importance to the patient and be part of the patient’s typical life. This meaningful health aspect can be measured directly or measured indirectly when it is impractical to evaluate it directly or when it is difficult to measure. For indirect measurement, a concept of interest (COI) can be identified. The COI must be related to how a patient feels or functions. Procedures are then developed to measure the COI. The relationship of these measurements with how a patient feels or functions in the intended setting and manner of use of the COA (the context of use) could then be defined. A COA has identifiable attributes or characteristics that affect the measurement properties of the COA when used in endpoints. One of these features is whether judgment can influence the measurement, and if so, whose judgment. This attribute defines four categories of COAs: patient reported outcomes, clinician reported outcomes, observer reported outcomes, and performance outcomes. A full description as well as explanation of other important COA features is included in this report. The information in this report should aid in the development, refinement, and standardization of COAs, and, ultimately, improve their measurement properties

Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients’ health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient’s health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment—Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention