FDA regulation of computerized cytology devices

When talking about computerized cytology devices, a "different" aspect of quality assurance must be addressed. Any medical device intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the United States must be cleared or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): the May 28, 1976, Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act granted authority to the FDA to regulate medical devices. The FDA regulatory process as it relates to computerized cytology devices is discussed. This includes an explanation of the differences between the two types of documents used to clear a medical device: (1) premarket notification [510(k)] and (2) premarket approval (PMA) application. Devices intended for "research use only" are also discussed. A computerized cytology device of current interest, the "automated Pap smear reader," is used as an example to further discuss performance and software considerations.     

Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis

Background

The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves new drugs based on sponsor-submitted clinical trials. The publication status of these trials in the medical literature and factors associated with publication have not been evaluated. We sought to determine the proportion of trials submitted to the FDA in support of newly approved drugs that are published in biomedical journals that a typical clinician, consumer, or policy maker living in the US would reasonably search.

Methods and Findings

We conducted a cohort study of trials supporting new drugs approved between 1998 and 2000, as described in FDA medical and statistical review documents and the FDA approved drug label. We determined publication status and time from approval to full publication in the medical literature at 2 and 5 y by searching PubMed and other databases through 01 August 2006. We then evaluated trial characteristics associated with publication. We identified 909 trials supporting 90 approved drugs in the FDA reviews, of which 43% (394/909) were published. Among the subset of trials described in the FDA-approved drug label and classified as “pivotal trials” for our analysis, 76% (257/340) were published. In multivariable logistic regression for all trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78–5.17); larger sample sizes (OR 1.33 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.17–1.52); and pivotal status (OR 5.31, 95% CI 3.30–8.55). In multivariable logistic regression for only the pivotal trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.24–7.06) and larger sample sizes (OR 1.47 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.15–1.88). Statistically significant results and larger sample sizes were also predictive of publication at 2 y postapproval and in multivariable Cox proportional models for all trials and the subset of pivotal trials.

Conclusions

Over half of all supporting trials for FDA-approved drugs remained unpublished ≥ 5 y after approval. Pivotal trials and trials with statistically significant results and larger sample sizes are more likely to be published. Selective reporting of trial results exists for commonly marketed drugs. Our data provide a baseline for evaluating publication bias as the new FDA Amendments Act comes into force mandating basic results reporting of clinical trials.     

Introduction to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory process

FDA oversight of medical devices, including in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs or laboratory tests), in the United States was a direct result of the passage of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. This law introduced a series of general controls for medical devices including registration and listing, requirements for production using good manufacturing practices, and requirements for post-market reporting of device failures. This produced for the first time a menu of laboratory tests on the market, a system to ensure these were produced consistently over time, and a mechanism for FDA to identify problems with device use and to work with companies to ensure corrective action. This law also introduced the requirement for premarket review of new versions of old devices and of fundamentally new medical devices.     

Premarket Safety and Efficacy Studies for ADHD Medications in Children

Background

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a chronic condition and pharmacotherapy is the mainstay of treatment, with a variety of ADHD medications available to patients. However, it is unclear to what extent the long-term safety and efficacy of ADHD drugs have been evaluated prior to their market authorization. We aimed to quantify the number of participants studied and their length of exposure in ADHD drug trials prior to marketing.

Methods

We identified all ADHD medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and extracted data on clinical trials performed by the sponsor and used by the FDA to evaluate the drug’s clinical efficacy and safety. For each ADHD medication, we measured the total number of participants studied and the length of participant exposure and identified any FDA requests for post-marketing trials.

Results

A total of 32 clinical trials were conducted for the approval of 20 ADHD drugs. The median number of participants studied per drug was 75 (IQR 0, 419). Eleven drugs (55%) were approved after <100 participants were studied and 14 (70%) after <300 participants. The median trial length prior to approval was 4 weeks (IQR 2, 9), with 5 (38%) drugs approved after participants were studied <4 weeks and 10 (77%) after <6 months. Six drugs were approved with requests for specific additional post-marketing trials, of which 2 were performed.

Conclusions

Clinical trials conducted for the approval of many ADHD drugs have not been designed to assess rare adverse events or long-term safety and efficacy. While post-marketing studies can fill in some of the gaps, better assurance is needed that the proper trials are conducted either before or after a new medication is approved.     

FDA regulation of invasive neural recording electrodes: a daunting task for medical innovators

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with assuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. Before any medical device can be brought to market, it must comply with all federal regulations regarding FDA processes for clearance or approval. Navigating the FDA regulatory process may seem like a daunting task to the innovator of a novel medical device who has little experience with the FDA regulatory process or device commercialization. This review introduces the basics of the FDA regulatory premarket process, with a focus on issues relating to chronically implanted recording devices in the central or peripheral nervous system. Topics of device classification and regulatory pathways, the use of standards and guidance documents, and optimal time lines for interaction with the FDA are discussed. Additionally, this article summarizes the regulatory research on neural implant safety and reliability conducted by the FDA's Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories (OSEL) in collaboration with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Reliable Neural Technology (RE-NET) Program. For a more detailed explanation of the medical device regulatory process, please refer to several excellent reviews of the FDA's regulatory pathways for medical devices [1]-[4].     

Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation

Background

Previous studies of drug trials submitted to regulatory authorities have documented selective reporting of both entire trials and favorable results. The objective of this study is to determine the publication rate of efficacy trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approved New Drug Applications (NDAs) and to compare the trial characteristics as reported by the FDA with those reported in publications.

Methods and Findings

This is an observational study of all efficacy trials found in approved NDAs for New Molecular Entities (NMEs) from 2001 to 2002 inclusive and all published clinical trials corresponding to the trials within the NDAs. For each trial included in the NDA, we assessed its publication status, primary outcome(s) reported and their statistical significance, and conclusions. Seventy-eight percent (128/164) of efficacy trials contained in FDA reviews of NDAs were published. In a multivariate model, trials with favorable primary outcomes (OR = 4.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33–17.1, p = 0.018) and active controls (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.02–11.2, p = 0.047) were more likely to be published. Forty-one primary outcomes from the NDAs were omitted from the papers. Papers included 155 outcomes that were in the NDAs, 15 additional outcomes that favored the test drug, and two other neutral or unknown additional outcomes. Excluding outcomes with unknown significance, there were 43 outcomes in the NDAs that did not favor the NDA drug. Of these, 20 (47%) were not included in the papers. The statistical significance of five of the remaining 23 outcomes (22%) changed between the NDA and the paper, with four changing to favor the test drug in the paper (p = 0.38). Excluding unknowns, 99 conclusions were provided in both NDAs and papers, nine conclusions (9%) changed from the FDA review of the NDA to the paper, and all nine did so to favor the test drug (100%, 95% CI 72%–100%, p = 0.0039).

Conclusions

Many trials were still not published 5 y after FDA approval. Discrepancies between the trial information reviewed by the FDA and information found in published trials tended to lead to more favorable presentations of the NDA drugs in the publications. Thus, the information that is readily available in the scientific literature to health care professionals is incomplete and potentially biased.     

Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials

BackgroundValid assessment of drug efficacy and safety requires an evidence base free of reporting bias. Using trial reports in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval packages as a gold standard, we previously found that the published literature inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressant drugs. The objective of the current study was to determine whether this has improved with recently approved drugs.Methods and findingsUsing medical and statistical reviews in FDA drug approval packages, we identified 30 Phase II/III double-blind placebo-controlled acute monotherapy trials, involving 13,747 patients, of desvenlafaxine, vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine; we then identified corresponding published reports. We compared the data from this newer cohort of antidepressants (approved February 2008 to September 2013) with the previously published dataset on 74 trials of 12 older antidepressants (approved December 1987 to August 2002).Using logistic regression, we examined the effects of trial outcome and trial cohort (newer versus older) on transparent reporting (whether published and FDA conclusions agreed). Among newer antidepressants, transparent publication occurred more with positive (15/15 = 100%) than negative (7/15 = 47%) trials (OR 35.1, CI_95% 1.8 to 693). Controlling for trial outcome, transparent publication occurred more with newer than older trials (OR 6.6, CI_95% 1.6 to 26.4). Within negative trials, transparent reporting increased from 11% to 47%.We also conducted and contrasted FDA- and journal-based meta-analyses. For newer antidepressants, FDA-based effect size (ES_FDA) was 0.24 (CI_95% 0.18 to 0.30), while journal-based effect size (ES_Journals) was 0.29 (CI_95% 0.23 to 0.36). Thus, effect size inflation, presumably due to reporting bias, was 0.05, less than for older antidepressants (0.10).Limitations of this study include a small number of trials and drugs—belonging to a single class—and a focus on efficacy (versus safety).ConclusionsReporting bias persists but appears to have diminished for newer, compared to older, antidepressants. Continued efforts are needed to further improve transparency in the scientific literature.     

Radioimmunotherapy of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: from the 'magic bullets' to 'radioactive magic bullets'

Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) of lymphoma with Zevalin and Bexxar was approved by FDA in 2002 and 2003, respectively, for the treatment of relapsed or refractory CD20+ follicular B-cell non-Hodgkin′s lymphoma. In 2009, Zevalin was also approved for consolidation therapy in patients with follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that achieve a partial or complete response to first-line chemotherapy. For follicular lymphoma patients, the overall response and progression-free survival rates have significantly improved since the implementation of RIT. The predominant complication of RIT is hematological toxicity that is usually manageable. There are ongoing trials to further define the expanding role of RIT as first line or concomitant therapy in the treatment of lymphoma as well as for certain antibiotic resistant infections and aggressive malignancies. There is also growing interest in the development of newer protocols for increased and more uniform dose delivery resulting in better outcomes and improved patient survival. This review will primarily focus on the role of RIT in treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which is of established clinical utility and FDA approved. The mechanism of RIT, available radionuclides and pharmacokinetics, therapy administration, clinical utility and toxicities, and future directions would be discussed.     

重组完整抗体研究进展

重组分子抗体是一类潜在的治疗用药物,约占目前进入临床试验的生物制品类药物的三分之一,FDA批准上市的抗体药物有近十种,其中多数为重组的完整人源抗体（包括人鼠嵌合抗体和人源化抗体）,本对基因工程完整抗体的有关实验研究进行了综述。     

Regulatory Incentives for Antibiotic Drug Development: A Review of Recent Proposals

Two primary regulatory mechanisms have been proposed to incentivize new antibiotic development: (1) changing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval processes to expedite antibiotic approval; and (2) offering enhanced possibilities for market exclusivity. Changes to the FDA regulatory approval process include greater reliance on surrogate endpoints such as biomarkers, use of noninferiority hypothesis designs for key preapproval clinical trials, and development of an expedited development track specific for antibiotics called the Limited Population pathway. The second strategy intended to encourage new antibiotic development has been to provide additional market exclusivity incentives based on regulatory approval. While these pathways have some positive attributes, they also present enhanced risks to patients associated with lower regulatory barriers and the market exclusivity incentives may not efficiently direct resources to the true origins of antibiotic innovation.     

Letter from the Editor

mAbs’ September/October 2009 issue highlights the promise and challenges of antibody therapeutics development. Representing promise, our mini-review series on novel antibodies currently undergoing regulatory review or recently approved continues in this issue. Previously published articles include mini-reviews of denosumab and ustekinumab (May/June 2009 issue) and ofatumumab (July/August 2009 issue). The September/October issue features articles on golimumab, tocilizumab and motavizumab. The mini-reviews present overviews of the completed and on-going clinical studies of these molecules. Anti-TNFα golimumab was approved in April 2009 by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis; anti-IL6R tocilizumab is approved in Japan and the European Union (EU), and is currently undergoing FDA review as a treatment for RA. The juxtaposition of these two mini-reviews provides an opportunity to easily compare summaries of the available clinical results. Future issues of mAbs will include mini-reviews of catumaxomab, canakinumab and raxibacumab, as well as any additional antibodies that enter regulatory review in 2009 and beyond.     

Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Background

The reporting of outcomes within published randomized trials has previously been shown to be incomplete, biased and inconsistent with study protocols. We sought to determine whether outcome reporting bias would be present in a cohort of government-funded trials subjected to rigorous peer review.

Methods

We compared protocols for randomized trials approved for funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (formerly the Medical Research Council of Canada) from 1990 to 1998 with subsequent reports of the trials identified in journal publications. Characteristics of reported and unreported outcomes were recorded from the protocols and publications. Incompletely reported outcomes were defined as those with insufficient data provided in publications for inclusion in meta-analyses. An overall odds ratio measuring the association between completeness of reporting and statistical significance was calculated stratified by trial. Finally, primary outcomes specified in trial protocols were compared with those reported in publications.

Results

We identified 48 trials with 68 publications and 1402 outcomes. The median number of participants per trial was 299, and 44% of the trials were published in general medical journals. A median of 31% (10th–90th percentile range 5%–67%) of outcomes measured to assess the efficacy of an intervention (efficacy outcomes) and 59% (0%–100%) of those measured to assess the harm of an intervention (harm outcomes) per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant efficacy outcomes had a higher odds than nonsignificant efficacy outcomes of being fully reported (odds ratio 2.7; 95% confidence interval 1.5–5.0). Primary outcomes differed between protocols and publications for 40% of the trials.

Interpretation

Selective reporting of outcomes frequently occurs in publications of high-quality government-funded trials.Selective reporting of results from randomized trials can occur either at the level of end points within published studies (outcome reporting bias)¹ or at the level of entire trials that are selectively published (study publication bias).² Outcome reporting bias has previously been demonstrated in a broad cohort of published trials approved by a regional ethics committee.¹ The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) — the primary federal funding agency, known before 2000 as the Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC) — recognized the need to address this issue and conducted an internal review process in 2002 to evaluate the reporting of results from its funded trials. The primary objectives were to determine (a) the prevalence of incomplete outcome reporting in journal publications of randomized trials; (b) the degree of association between adequate outcome reporting and statistical significance; and (c) the consistency between primary outcomes specified in trial protocols and those specified in subsequent journal publications.     

In silico drug repositioning against human NRP1 to block SARS-CoV-2 host entry

Despite COVID-19 turned into a pandemic, no approved drug for the treatment or globally available vaccine is out yet. In such a global emergency, drug repurposing approach that bypasses a costly and long-time demanding drug discovery process is an effective way in search of finding drugs for the COVID-19 treatment. Recent studies showed that SARS-CoV-2 uses neuropilin-1 (NRP1) for host entry. Here we took advantage of structural information of the NRP1 in complex with C-terminal of spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 to identify drugs that may inhibit NRP1 and S protein interaction. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs were screened using docking simulations. Among top drugs, well-tolerated drugs were selected for further analysis. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of drugs-NRP1 complexes were run for 100 ns to assess the persistency of binding. MM/GBSA calculations from MD simulations showed that eltrombopag, glimepiride, sitagliptin, dutasteride, and ergotamine stably and strongly bind to NRP1. In silico Alanine scanning analysis revealed that Tyr²⁹⁷, Trp³⁰¹, and Tyr³⁵³ amino acids of NRP1 are critical for drug binding. Validating the effect of drugs analyzed in this paper by experimental studies and clinical trials will expedite the drug discovery process for COVID-19.     

The FDA and designing clinical trials for chronic cutaneous ulcers

Treatment of chronic wounds can present a challenge, with many patients remaining refractory to available advanced therapies. As such, there is a strong need for the development of new products. Unfortunately, despite this demand, few new wound-related drugs have been approved over the past decade. This is in part due to unsuccessful clinical trials and subsequent lack of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. In this article, we discuss the FDA approval process, how it relates to chronic wound trials, common issues that arise, and how best to manage them. Additionally, problems encountered specific to diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) and venous leg ulcers (VLU) are addressed. Careful construction of a clinical trial is necessary in order to achieve the best possible efficacy outcomes and thereby, gain FDA approval. How to design an optimal trial is outlined.     

Drug discovery considerations in the development of covalent inhibitors

In recent years, the number of drug candidates with a covalent mechanism of action progressing through clinical trials or being approved by the FDA has increased significantly. And as interest in covalent inhibitors has increased, the technical challenges for characterizing and optimizing these inhibitors have become evident. A number of new tools have been developed to aid this process, but these have not gained wide-spread use. This review will highlight a number of methods and tools useful for prosecuting covalent inhibitor drug discovery programs.     

Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States

Background aimsRegulatory agencies in the European Union (EU) and in the United States of America (USA) have adapted and launched regulatory pathways to accelerate patient access to innovative therapies, such as advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). The aim of this study is to analyze similarities and differences between regulatory pathways followed by the approved ATMPs in both regions.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the ATMPs approved by EU and US regulatory agencies was carried out until May 31, 2020. Data were collected on the features and timing of orphan drug designation (ODD), scientific advice (SA), expedited program designation (EP), marketing authorization application (MAA) and marketing authorization (MA) for both regions.ResultsIn the EU, a total of fifteen ATMPs were approved (eight gene therapies, three somatic cell therapies, three tissue-engineered products and one combined ATMP), whereas in the USA, a total of nine were approved (five gene therapies and four cell therapies); seven of these were authorized in both regions. No statistical differences were found in the mean time between having the ODD or EP granted and the start of the pivotal clinical trial or MAA in the EU and USA, although the USA required less time for MAA assessment than the EU (mean difference, 5.44, P = 0.012). The MAA assessment was shorter for those products with a PRIME or breakthrough designation.. No differences were found in the percentage of ATMPs with expedited MAA assessment between the EU and the USA (33.3% versus 55.5%, respectively, P = 0.285) or in the time required for the MAA expedited review (mean difference 4.41, P = 0.105). Approximately half of the products in both regions required an Advisory Committee during the MAA review, and 60% required an oral explanation in the EU. More than half of the approved ATMPs (67% and 55.55% in the EU and the USA, respectively) were granted an ODD, 70% by submitting preliminary clinical data in the EU. The mean number of SA and protocol assistance per product conducted by the European Medicines Agency was 1.71 and 3.75, respectively, and only 13% included parallel advice with health technology assessment bodies. A total of 53.33% of the products conducted the first SA after the pivotal clinical study had started, reporting more protocol amendments. Finally, of the seven ATMPs authorized in both regions, the type of MA differed for only two ATMPs (28.6%), and four out of eight products non-commercialized in the USA had a non-standard MA in the EU.ConclusionsThe current approved ATMPs mainly target orphan diseases. Although EU and US regulatory procedures may differ, the main regulatory milestones reached by the approved ATMPs are similar in both regions, with the exception of the time for MAA evaluation, the number of authorized products in the regions and the type of authorization for some products. More global regulatory convergence might further simplify and expedite current ATMP development in these regions.     

Biological response modifiers in cancer

We have seen a surge in the use of immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer. Biological response modifiers can act passively by enhancing the immunologic response to tumor cells or actively by altering the differentiation/growth of tumor cells. Active immunotherapy with cytokines such as interferons (IFNs) and interleukins (IL-2) is a form of nonspecific active immune stimulation. The use of IL-2 has recently been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma and metastatic colorectal cancer. Considerable success has been achieved with the use of immunotherapy, especially in the area of passive immunotherapy using monoclonal antibodies--in particular, radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies. In addition to the various monoclonal antibodies that have been used in clinical trials, other strategies such as the use of antiangiogenic agents and matrix metalloprotease inhibitors (MMPIs) have also met with some success. Recently, the FDA approved bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent, for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. This review also sheds light on the various angiogenesis inhibitors in clinical trials, the increasing use of thalidomide in cancer, and the upcoming potential cancer vaccines designed to activate cell-mediated immune responses against tumor antigens.     

Advanced strategies for combating bacterial biofilms

Biofilms are communities of microorganisms that are formed on and attached to living or nonliving surfaces and are surrounded by an extracellular polymeric material. Biofilm formation enjoys several advantages over the pathogens in the colonization process of medical devices and patients' organs. Unlike planktonic cells, biofilms have high intrinsic resistance to antibiotics and sanitizers, and overcoming them is a significant problematic challenge in the medical and food industries. There are no approved treatments to specifically target biofilms. Thus, it is required to study and present innovative and effective methods to combat a bacterial biofilm. In this review, several strategies have been discussed for combating bacterial biofilms to improve healthcare, food safety, and industrial process.