Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Patients have a unique role in deciding what treatments should be available for them and regulatory agencies should take their preferences into account when making treatment approval decisions. This is the first study designed to obtain quantitative patient-preference evidence to inform regulatory approval decisions by the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Methods Five-hundred and forty United States adults with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m 2 evaluated tradeoffs among effectiveness, safety, and other attributes of weight-loss devices in a scientific survey. Discrete-choice experiments were used to quantify the importance of safety, effectiveness, and other attributes of weight-loss devices to obese respondents. A tool based on these measures is being used to inform benefit-risk assessments for premarket approval of medical devices. Results Respondent choices yielded preference scores indicating their relative value for attributes of weight-loss devices in this study. We developed a tool to estimate the minimum weight loss acceptable by a patient to receive a device with a given risk profile and the maximum mortality risk tolerable in exchange for a given weight loss. For example, to accept a device with 0.01 % mortality risk, a risk tolerant patient will require about 10 % total body weight loss lasting 5 years. Conclusions Patient preference evidence was used make regulatory decision making more patient-centered. In addition, we captured the heterogeneity of patient preferences allowing market approval of effective devices for risk tolerant patients. CDRH is using the study tool to define minimum clinical effectiveness to evaluate new weight-loss devices. The methods presented can be applied to a wide variety of medical products. This study supports the ongoing development of a guidance document on incorporating patient preferences into medical-device premarket approval decisions.

Background Real-world evidence (RWE) generated using real-world data (RWD) presents the potential to contextualize and/or supplement traditional clinical trials for regulatory approval of rare diseases (RDs). This systematic review evaluated the use of RWD for non-oncologic RD therapies with orphan drug designation (ODD) to support efficacy outcomes in regulatory application packages to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). New drug applications (NDAs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) submitted between January 2017 and October 2022 were obtained from publicly available FDA drug approval websites. NDAs and BLAs of non-oncologic RD therapies were screened, and manually reviewed using RWE-related keywords. Quantitative summary of number/proportion of study types was provided, whereas qualitative synthesis focused on key categories of output assessing the use of RWD in overall drug approval process, including agency’s feedback on its strengths and key challenges. Results A total of 868 NDAs and BLAs were identified, of which 243 were screened for non-oncologic RDs with ODD, and 151 were subsequently reviewed for the RWD used to support efficacy outcomes. Twenty (12 NDAs, 8 BLAs) applications met the review inclusion criteria. Most (19; 95%) applications used only retrospective RWD, while one (5%) collected RWD both retrospectively and prospectively. RWD studies included natural history including registry-based/retrospective historical controls (14; 70%), retrospective medical chart-reviews (4; 20%), and external RWD controls from other studies (2; 10%). The FDA generally accepted RWD studies demonstrating a large effect size despite the noted concerns and criticisms. However, the agency expressed concerns about overall quality and comparability of RWD with trial data for some applications, including RWD study designs with respect to differences in patients’ baseline characteristics, missing information, and potential bias and measurement errors. Conclusions This systematic review highlights potential benefits of appropriately conducted RWE studies in RD, which can strengthen the clinical evidence for efficacy comparison and contextualization to support product approval efforts, particularly when a large magnitude of effect is observed for the new intervention. Nonetheless, quality and completeness of RWD and its comparability with trial data remain areas of concern that can serve as valuable learnings for advancing future science and regulatory approvals.

Dating to the discovery of the Lupus Erythematosus (LE) cell in 1948, there has been a dramatic growth in the discovery of unique autoantibodies and their cognate targets, all of which has led to the availability and use of autoantibody testing for a broad spectrum of autoimmune diseases. Most studies of the sensitivity, specificity, commutability, and harmonization of autoantibody testing have focused on widely available, commercially developed and agency-certified autoantibody kits. However, this is only a small part of the spectrum of autoantibody tests that are provided through laboratories world-wide. This manuscript will review the wider spectrum of testing by exploring the innovation pathway that begins with autoantibody discovery followed by assessment of clinical relevance, accuracy, validation, and then consideration of regulatory requirements as an approved diagnostic test. Some tests are offered as “Research Use Only (RUO)”, some as “Laboratory Developed Tests (LDT)”, some enter Health Technology Assessment (HTA) pathways, while others are relegated to a “death valley” of autoantibody discovery and become “orphan” autoantibodies. Those that achieve regulatory approval are further threatened by the business world’s “Darwinian Sea of Survival”. As one example of the trappings of autoantibody progression or failure, it is reported that more than 200 different autoantibodies have been described in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a small handful (~10%) of these have achieved regulatory approval and are widely available as commercial diagnostic kits, while a few others may be available as RUO or LDT assays. However, the vast majority (90%) are orphaned and languish in an autoantibody ‘death valley’. This review proposes that it is important to keep an inventory of these “orphan autoantibodies” in ‘death valley’ because, with the increasing availability of multi-analyte arrays and artificial intelligence (MAAI), some can be rescued to achieve a useful role in clinical diagnostic especially in light of patient stratification and precision medicine.

SummaryBackground The Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) was established in 2004. Since then, various pieces of legislation, notices, and guidelines have been issued, and the regulatory approval pathways for domestic drugs have been diversified. However, the effects of these measures have not been fully examined. We examined the impact of these measures on the approval of antineoplastic drugs and the design of pivotal clinical trials for efficacy assessment by the PMDA. Methods We collected data on the antineoplastic drugs approved by the PMDA in fiscal years 2004–2019. We extracted the approval review pathways and the pivotal clinical trial designs from the PMDA review reports, and analyzed them to identify patterns. Results In total, 387 indications in oncology were approved by the PMDA in fiscal years 2004–2019, or 365 indications excluding multiple regulatory pathways. The number of approved indications generally increased year on year (p < 0.001). The largest number of approved indications was under the Orphan Drug Designation (31%, 114/365) and this continues to increase (p < 0.001). In the 288 indications for which clinical trial data were submitted for review, the pivotal clinical trial designs changed significantly (p < 0.001) after the guideline on clinical evaluation for antineoplastic drugs was revised in 2006. Conclusion The number of indications in oncology approved by the PMDA has been increasing over the past 16 years, alongside changes in regulatory pathways. The 2006 guideline on clinical evaluation had a particular impact on pivotal clinical trial designs.

International drug regulators use conditional drug approval mechanisms to facilitate faster patient access to drugs based on a lower evidentiary standard typically required of drug approvals. Faster and earlier access is justified by limiting eligibility to drugs intended for serious and life-threatening diseases and by requiring post-market evidence collection to confirm clinical benefit. One such mechanism in Canada, the Notice of Compliance with Conditions (NOC/c) policy, was introduced in 1998. Today, most of the drugs approved under the NOC/c policy are for oncology indications. We analyze oncology drugs approvals under the NOC/c policy to inform discussions of two tradeoffs applied to conditional drug approvals, eligibility criteria and post-market evidence. Our analysis informs recommendations for Canada's proposed regulatory reforms approach to conditional approvals pathways. Our analysis demonstrates that under the current policy, eligibility criteria are insufficiently defined, resulting in their inconsistent application by Health Canada. Regulatory responsiveness to post-market evidence from post-market clinical trial and foreign jurisdiction regulatory decisions is slow and insufficient. In the absence of sufficient regulatory responsiveness, physicians and patients must make clinical decisions without the benefit of the best available evidence. Together, our analysis of the two core tradeoffs in Canada's conditional drug approval provides insight to inform the further development of Canada's proposed agile regulatory approach to drugs and devices that will expand the use of terms and conditions.

Introduction Studies that have resulted in recent approval of hypnotics for chronic insomnia disorder (CID) have extremely restrictive inclusion criteria. We sought to determine how many patients seen in a sleep medicine clinic would be eligible to participate in these trials in order to assess the generalizability of these findings to clinical populations. Methods Six-hundred and twenty-eight patients were screened to identify 100 patients who were ≥18 years old, had a diagnosis of CID, and were prescribed a hypnotic medication at a sleep medicine clinic in a quaternary level healthcare center. Information regarding age, sex, body mass index, comorbid diagnoses, sleep schedule, medications, alcohol/tobacco/illicit drug use, caffeine intake, as well as Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Insomnia Severity Index scores were abstracted. These data were compared against the inclusion and exclusion criteria for recent regulatory Phase III trials of orexin receptor antagonists (suvorexant, lemborexant, daridorexant). Results Of the 100 patients with CID (mean age=56.2 years; 57% female), only 3 patients met eligibility criteria for inclusion. A majority of patients (80%) would have been excluded due to a prior/concurrent trial of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. If this criterion was set aside, only 11 patients would have been eligible to participate. The remaining top reasons for potential exclusion from the regulatory trials were: presence of medical comorbidities (36%), daytime napping (33%), and sleep apnea (30%). Conclusion A very small number of patients with CID seen in a clinical setting met eligibility criteria for clinical trials of hypnotic medications resulting in regulatory approval. This substantially limits the generalizability of findings from these trials and restricts our ability to determine the efficacy of these drugs in clinical populations. Future trials should enroll patients with less restrictive criteria to help determine the effectiveness of these medications in real world settings. Support (if any)

Background Cognizant of indispensable role as important health intervention tools, the global medical devices industry continues to bring new medical devices with varying degrees of technologies and complexities. Ensuring the safety, good performance and timely access of them have become challenging for regulatory authorities, particularly for developing countries including Ethiopia. In Ethiopia, the role of the regulatory authority is complicated further because of the lack of specific policies. Medical devices regulation is still being dealt under drug policy. Objectives This study was aimed to assess the regulatory approval processes of medical devices in Ethiopia. Methods A mixed sequential explanatory study design was employed. Quantitative data were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire and standard checklist; qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews using a semi-structured guide. Results Retrospective trend analysis (2015 to 2018) indicated that 3,804 medical devices were registered in Ethiopia. Findings from the quantitative study indicated that 73.3% of regulatory experts had commendable knowledge on the medical devices regulatory system. However, gaps were identified in inspection and auditing (63.8%), practically understanding the system and procedures (24.3%), and having competencies in executing the critical core functions (6.9%). The top five challenges reported include (i) lack of capacity to assess dossiers (80.8%); (ii) lack of effective legislation (64.1%); (iii) provision of ambiguous feedback on deficiencies after dossier evaluations and delay in their communication (63.9%); (iv) long waiting time for approval (61.1%); and (v) lack of experienced and qualified staff (55.7%). In addition, the absence of a specific policy for medical device regulation presents a great hurdle. Conclusion Basic functional systems and procedures for the regulation of medical devices in Ethiopia are present. However, there are still gaps that are impeding effective regulation of medical devices especially for those with advanced features and complex-monitoring modalities.

Randomised controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (ie, all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist, and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomised controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomised controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper.

The field of cancer nanomedicine seeks to overcome the inherent shortcomings of conventional cancer diagnostics and therapies. Yet despite the surge of interest in and attractive attributes of nanotechnologies, challenges remain in their clinical translation, prompting some to argue that they have not yet reached their true potential. In this Viewpoint article, we asked four experts for their opinions on how we can fulfil the great promise of nanomedicine for the detection, diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer.In this Viewpoint article, we asked four scientists working in the field of cancer nanomedicine to provide their opinions on how we can truly fulfil the great promise of nanotechnologies for the detection, diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer.

Objective To determine the availability of data on overall survival and quality of life benefits of cancer drugs approved in Europe.Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting Publicly accessible regulatory and scientific reports on cancer approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2009 to 2013.Main outcome measures Pivotal and postmarketing trials of cancer drugs according to their design features (randomisation, crossover, blinding), comparators, and endpoints. Availability and magnitude of benefit on overall survival or quality of life determined at time of approval and after market entry. Validated European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) used to assess the clinical value of the reported gains in published studies of cancer drugs.Results From 2009 to 2013, the EMA approved the use of 48 cancer drugs for 68 indications. Of these, eight indications (12%) were approved on the basis of a single arm study. At the time of market approval, there was significant prolongation of survival in 24 of the 68 (35%). The magnitude of the benefit on overall survival ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 months (median 2.7 months). At the time of market approval, there was an improvement in quality of life in seven of 68 indications (10%). Out of 44 indications for which there was no evidence of a survival gain at the time of market authorisation, in the subsequent postmarketing period there was evidence for extension of life in three (7%) and reported benefit on quality of life in five (11%). Of the 68 cancer indications with EMA approval, and with a median of 5.4 years’ follow-up (minimum 3.3 years, maximum 8.1 years), only 35 (51%) had shown a significant improvement in survival or quality of life, while 33 (49%) remained uncertain. Of 23 indications associated with a survival benefit that could be scored with the ESMO-MCBS tool, the benefit was judged to be clinically meaningful in less than half (11/23, 48%).Conclusions This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal.