Explore the vast range of titles available.

With the implementation of the new EU regulation on in vitro diagnostics (IVDR) in May 2022, notified bodies will be required to assess Companion Diagnostics (CDx). The EMA and national medicines agencies will be consulted on the performance and safety of CDx. In this paper, we report on our systematic review on how the EMA has dealt with CDx in dossiers for marketing authorization procedures, in 2017–2019, and in scientific advice procedures in 2016–2020, prior to the implementation of the new IVDR. Out of 167 medicines approved or refused by the EMA, CDx played a role for 20 medicines during assessment. Both European public assessment reports (EPARs) and the internal day 80 and day 120 assessment reports (ARs) of the EMA centralized marketing authorization procedures for these 20 medicines were analyzed in detail to determine how CDx were assessed. Likewise, in 46 of 159 cases in which scientific advice was provided, CDx were mentioned in the question-and-answer section of the scientific advice, and these were analyzed in an analogous manner. Our analysis indicates that clinical performance and analytical performance of the CDx were the most-discussed topics, being discussed 11 and seven times in the 20 EPARs and 59 and 29 times in the ARs, respectively. For scientific advice, clinical and analytical performance was discussed 65 and 22 times in the 46 retrieved mentions of scientific advice. Other aspects in relation to CDx were discussed as well, although at a lower frequency, in assessment reports and scientific advice. Overall, our analysis demonstrates that, despite the absence of an obligation from a legal point of view, EMA has gained experience on the assessment of CDx, most notably regarding its analytical and clinical performance. This experience may be useful in situations in which the EMA and national agencies of EU member states will formally be consulted by notified bodies regarding the performance and safety of CDx. In addition, the issues raised in the EPARs, ARs and scientific advice reports provide insight for applicants on aspects of CDx that need careful consideration.

Medical history has not wandered far from its original aspirations of being personalized. Diagnostic capability has evolved from the metaphysical to the anatomical to the cellular and ultimately to the molecular level. Now that diseases can be subclassified into categories that indicate the course of disease and in some cases its likely response to treatment, there is a responsibility to act on that information. As more predictive biomarkers become clinically validated and as more targeted therapies become available, single marker companion diagnostics for specific drugs will be replaced by multiplex and multiparameter diagnostics that may be applicable across disease entities preserving sample, time, money and enabling rapid molecular taxonomy. We call this an ensemble relationship model between diagnostics and medicines.

Background Several companion diagnostic (CDx) tests for epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR‐TKIs) have been approved. In our institute, the CDx test for EGFR‐TKIs was changed from the Therascreen test (Therascreen) to the Cobas EGFR v2 test (Cobas) because only Cobas was approved for the use of osimertinib in patients with EGFR‐mutated non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with T790M mutations. The clinical influence of switching the CDx test has not yet been examined comprehensively. Methods All serial patients with lung cancer tested for EGFR mutations with CDx tests between February 2014 and February 2016 at the Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research (JFCR) were enrolled in this analysis. Results Therascreen was used as a CDx test for EGFR‐TKI therapy in 607 patients between February 2014 and January 2015, and Cobas was used in 621 patients between February 2015 and February 2016. EGFR mutations were detected in 218 patients (35.9%) and 244 patients (39.3%) tested with Therascreen and Cobas, respectively. At the initial diagnosis, 400 and 459 patients were tested with Therascreen and Cobas, respectively. EGFR mutation subtypes, including del19, L858R, and others, were detected in 13.0%, 17.0%, and 2.5% of patients using Therascreen and 17.4%, 14.4%, and 1.5% of patients using Cobas, respectively. Conclusions No significant impact of switching from Therascreen to Cobas as the CDx test for EGFR mutations in clinical practice was observed. However, the detection pattern of the EGFR mutation subtypes between the two CDx tests was slightly different. Key points Significant findings of the study We examined the influence of changing the EGFR test in 1228 patients in total. The detection rate of EGFR mutations was similar. However, the detection pattern for EGFR subtype mutations was slightly different between the two tests. What this study adds Switching CDx tests from target polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐ to next‐generation sequencing (NGS)‐based methods may lead to obvious changes in clinical practice. When the CDx test is required to change, the investigation of this influence is warranted in future studies. We examined the influence of changing the EGFR test among target PCR methods in 1228 patients in total. The detection rate of EGFR mutations was similar while the detection pattern for EGFR subtype mutations was slightly different between the two tests. In the future, switching companion diagnostic (CDx) tests from target PCR methods to NGS‐based methods may lead to obvious changes in clinical practice.

Targeted therapies continue to be key components of cancer treatment. New approaches to detection of acquired resistance at the genomic level, in combination with new therapies, help to overcome the challenges that are seen frequently, rapidly and broadly across tumor pathologies, and provide opportunities for cancer management. In the last several years, a new breed of modalities called immune checkpoint inhibitors have come to the forefront of clinically effective treatments. A plethora of rapid approvals and early access initiatives have seen anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4, and particularly anti-programmed death receptor-1 therapies, deployed in a number of tumor indications of high unmet need. With the rise of immune checkpoint inhibition, and the broader resurgence in the immuno-oncology field, we are facing challenges in the prediction of response.

Medical history has not wandered far from its original aspirations of being personalized. Diagnostic capability has evolved from the metaphysical to the anatomical to the cellular and ultimately to the molecular level. Now that diseases can be subclassified into categories that indicate the course of disease and in some cases its likely response to treatment, there is a responsibility to act on that information. As more predictive biomarkers become clinically validated and as more targeted therapies become available, single marker companion diagnostics for specific drugs will be replaced by multiplex and multiparameter diagnostics that may be applicable across disease entities preserving sample, time, money and enabling rapid molecular taxonomy. We call this an ensemble relationship model between diagnostics and medicines.

Despite the growing number of biologic and JAK inhibitor therapeutic agents available to treat various systemic autoimmune illnesses, the lack of a validated companion diagnostic (CDx) to accurately predict drug responsiveness for an individual results in many patients being treated for years with expensive, ineffective, or toxic drugs. This review will focus primarily on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapeutics where the need is greatest due to poor patient outcomes if the optimum drug is delayed. We will review current FDA-approved biologic and small molecule drugs and why RA patients switch these medications. We will discuss the sampling of various tissues for potential CDx and review early results from studies investigating drug responsiveness utilizing advanced technologies including; multiplex testing of cytokines and proteins, autoantibody profiling, genomic analysis, proteomics, miRNA analysis, and metabolomics. By using these new technologies for CDx the goal is to improve RA patient outcomes and achieve similar successes like those seen in oncology using precision medicine guided therapeutics.

The use of nucleic acid‐based diagnostic tests as guiding elements for a specific drug has become the essential element of companion diagnostics (CDx). This chapter shows the benefit of nucleic acid‐based CDx tests that result in improved medical outcome and at the same time in lower healthcare costs due to personalized targeted treatment. The CDx has an evolutionary continuance of in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests with goal to ensure the optimal use of a drug as part of therapy. All drivers for the increase of use of CDx have their basis in the challenges pharma is facing. In summary, there are two key drivers. The first driver is based on increased hurdles by regulators for new drugs to make it to market and the second driver is that pharma companies are becoming financially strained.

The European Union In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR) introduces companion diagnostics (CDx) as a new legal term. CDx are applied in combination with a medicinal product to identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit from a treatment or who are at increased risk. This new regulation came into full effect on 26 May 2022 and represents the current development in personalized medicine. The implementation of IVDR and CDx is a regulatory challenge in the EU, requiring re-assessment of in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD) in terms of their CDx designation. To retrospectively identify IVD biomarker testing applied in clinical trials, a systematic search in the German PharmNet Clinical Trials database was developed. In total 3643 clinical trials conducted between 2004 and 2022 were identified. The results were analyzed in terms of medicinal products, biomarkers, and IVDs. Patient stratification based on biomarker testing mainly takes place in oncology-related trials, and the biomarkers most frequently tested are PD-L1 and HER2. Furthermore, there is a significant overlap between the collected data and non-European national authorities that have already implemented the CDx concept. This analysis could be indicatory of the medicinal products and corresponding IVD tests that could be CDx candidates under the IVDR.

Background The incidence of breast cancer (BC) in LMICs has increased by more than 20% within the last decade. In areas such as Latin America (LA), addressing BC at national levels evoke discussions surrounding fragmented care, limited resources, and regulatory barriers. Precision Medicine (PM), specifically companion diagnostics (CDx), links disease diagnosis and treatment for better patient outcomes. Thus, its application may aid in overcoming these barriers. Recent findings A panel of LA experts in fields related to BC and PM were provided with a series of relevant questions to address prior to a multi‐day conference. Within this conference, each narrative was edited by the entire group, through numerous rounds of discussion until a consensus was achieved. The panel proposes specific, realistic recommendations for implementing CDx in BC in LA and other LMIC regions. In these recommendations, the authors strived to address all barriers to the widespread use and access mentioned previously within this manuscript. Conclusion This manuscript provides a review of the current state of CDx for BC in LA. Of most importance, the panel proposes practical and actionable recommendations for the implementation of CDx throughout the Region in order to identify the right patient at the right time for the right treatment.

This article summarizes the broad messages from pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies on the collaborations required to support companion diagnostics. Since the groundbreaking herceptin HER2 diagnostic model in 1998, it has taken until 2011 for the US FDA to issue a draft guidance document, which was then immediately followed with approvals for two new drugs and their companion diagnostics. This conference summarized the current state of thinking in new projects and innovative technologies in pharmaceutical and diagnostic codevelopment. Attitudes are slowly changing and collaborations are rapidly ensuing, although the alignment between pharmaceutical and diagnostic understanding of value, timelines, outcomes and impact is difficult and remains a contentious area. The value of this conference has been to address these issues.