Synthesizing regulatory guidance for demonstrating preclinical efficacy and translating promising cell therapies to early phase clinical trials: a scoping review.
Animal
Best practice
Cell therapy
Clinical trials
Guidance
International Council for Harmonisation
Preclinical
Regulatory
Stem cell
Study design
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Oct 2024
23 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
22
12
2023
accepted:
08
10
2024
medline:
24
10
2024
pubmed:
24
10
2024
entrez:
24
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Regulatory applications for cell therapy face more objections compared to conventional small molecule or biological drugs, leading to delays in market approval and clinical adoption. Increased regulatory objections frequently relate to issues regarding preclinical evidence, such as experimental design of animal studies, selection of animal models, endpoints, and determination of mechanism of action. Synthesis and clarification of the preclinical evidence necessary to demonstrate treatment efficacy and advance into early-phase clinical trials is needed to help researchers avoid regulatory objections. We conducted a scoping review in which we searched repositories of the International Council for Harmonisation and all national member organizations (N = 38) for documents related to preclinical studies of cell therapies. Active guidance documents related to cell therapy were included, with no restrictions based on the year or language of publication. Data extraction was conducted in duplicate with conflicts resolved through consensus discussion. From 1215 identified documents, a total of 182 were included and analyzed, with 71% originating from ten major regulatory agencies. The most prevalent preclinical item addressed was the mechanism of action (n = 161, 88% of documents), underscoring its importance in bridging preclinical findings to clinical application. Most documents (n = 140, 77%) emphasized the importance of using clinically relevant preclinical models, though specific recommendations on models of disease were less common (n = 81, 45%). Selection of clinically relevant intervention parameters (n = 136, 75%) and outcome measures (n = 121, 66%) were also frequently recommended, but selection of relevant comparator groups appeared less frequently (n = 35, 19%). Furthermore, robust study design elements such as randomization and blinding were less frequently recommended, appearing in 31% of documents (n = 57). Comparison with clinical trial guidance revealed a significant gap in the rigor of study design recommendations for preclinical research. Regulatory guidance for preclinical efficacy studies often recommends a strong emphasis on the clinical relevance of animal models, intervention parameters, outcomes, and mechanism of action. Incorporating these recommendations into early preclinical studies should improve the acceptability of preclinical evidence for approval by the relevant national regulators and can be used as a guide to ensure that all evidence that regulators say they expect is efficiently assembled into new clinical trial applications.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Regulatory applications for cell therapy face more objections compared to conventional small molecule or biological drugs, leading to delays in market approval and clinical adoption. Increased regulatory objections frequently relate to issues regarding preclinical evidence, such as experimental design of animal studies, selection of animal models, endpoints, and determination of mechanism of action. Synthesis and clarification of the preclinical evidence necessary to demonstrate treatment efficacy and advance into early-phase clinical trials is needed to help researchers avoid regulatory objections.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a scoping review in which we searched repositories of the International Council for Harmonisation and all national member organizations (N = 38) for documents related to preclinical studies of cell therapies. Active guidance documents related to cell therapy were included, with no restrictions based on the year or language of publication. Data extraction was conducted in duplicate with conflicts resolved through consensus discussion.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From 1215 identified documents, a total of 182 were included and analyzed, with 71% originating from ten major regulatory agencies. The most prevalent preclinical item addressed was the mechanism of action (n = 161, 88% of documents), underscoring its importance in bridging preclinical findings to clinical application. Most documents (n = 140, 77%) emphasized the importance of using clinically relevant preclinical models, though specific recommendations on models of disease were less common (n = 81, 45%). Selection of clinically relevant intervention parameters (n = 136, 75%) and outcome measures (n = 121, 66%) were also frequently recommended, but selection of relevant comparator groups appeared less frequently (n = 35, 19%). Furthermore, robust study design elements such as randomization and blinding were less frequently recommended, appearing in 31% of documents (n = 57). Comparison with clinical trial guidance revealed a significant gap in the rigor of study design recommendations for preclinical research.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Regulatory guidance for preclinical efficacy studies often recommends a strong emphasis on the clinical relevance of animal models, intervention parameters, outcomes, and mechanism of action. Incorporating these recommendations into early preclinical studies should improve the acceptability of preclinical evidence for approval by the relevant national regulators and can be used as a guide to ensure that all evidence that regulators say they expect is efficiently assembled into new clinical trial applications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39443960
doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03690-8
pii: 10.1186/s12916-024-03690-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
487Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
International Epidemiological Association, Porta M, Greenland S, Burón A. A dictionary of epidemiology. Sixth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 377.
International Society for Stem Cell Research. Guidelines for stem cell research and clinical translation. 2021. Available from: https://www.isscr.org/s/isscr-guidelines-for-stem-cell-research-and-clinical-translation-2021.pdf . [cited 2023 Jul 7].
Viswanathan S, Keating A. Overcoming the challenges of conducting translational research in cell therapy. Front Med. 2011;5(4):333–5.
doi: 10.1007/s11684-011-0166-2
pubmed: 22198744
Izeta A, Cuende N. Regulation of advanced therapies in Europe: are we on the right track? Cell Stem Cell. 2023;30(8):1013–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2023.07.004
pubmed: 37541207
Yu TTL, Gupta P, Ronfard V, Vertès AA, Bayon Y. Recent progress in European advanced therapy medicinal products and beyond. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2018;6:130–130.
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00130
pubmed: 30298129
pmcid: 6161540
Hidalgo-Simon A. The EMA view: advanced therapies in Europe. 2017. Available from: https://www.ebe-biopharma.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2017-AHS-pesentation-6th-EBE-Annual-Regulatory-Conference-5-Dec-17.pdf .
Elsallab M, Bravery CA, Kurtz A, Abou-El-Enein M. Mitigating deficiencies in evidence during regulatory assessments of advanced therapies: a comparative study with other biologicals. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2020Sep;11(18):269–79.
doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2020.05.035
Barkholt L, Voltz-Girolt C, Raine J, Salmonson T, Schüssler-Lenz M. European regulatory experience with advanced therapy medicinal products. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;18(1):8–9.
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2018.200
pubmed: 30498203
Ten Ham RMT, Hoekman J, Hövels AM, Broekmans AW, Leufkens HGM, Klungel OH. Challenges in advanced therapy medicinal product development: a survey among companies in Europe. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2018Dec;14(11):121–30.
Shin W, Kim MG, Kim A. Comparison of international guidelines for early-phase clinical trials of cellular and gene therapy products. Transl Clin Pharmacol. 2022Mar;30(1):13–23.
doi: 10.12793/tcp.2022.30.e2
pubmed: 35419313
pmcid: 8979759
Wieschowski S, Chin WWL, Federico C, Sievers S, Kimmelman J, Strech D. Preclinical efficacy studies in investigator brochures: do they enable risk–benefit assessment? PLoS Biol. 2018Apr 5;16(4): e2004879.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004879
pubmed: 29621228
pmcid: 5886385
Henderson VC, Kimmelman J, Fergusson D, Grimshaw JM, Hackam DG. Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: a systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001489–e1001489.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001489
pubmed: 23935460
pmcid: 3720257
Kwon BK, Okon EB, Tsai E, Beattie MS, Bresnahan JC, Magnuson DK, et al. A grading system to evaluate objectively the strength of pre-clinical data of acute neuroprotective therapies for clinical translation in spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28(8):1525–43.
doi: 10.1089/neu.2010.1296
pubmed: 20507235
pmcid: 3143387
Kwon BK, Soril LJ, Bacon M, Beattie MS, Blesch A, Bresnahan JC, et al. Demonstrating efficacy in preclinical studies of cellular therapies for spinal cord injury—how much is enough? Exp Neurol. 2013;248:30–44.
doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2013.05.012
pubmed: 23727091
Saver JL, Albers GW, Dunn B, Johnston KC, Fisher M. Stroke therapy academic industry roundtable (STAIR) recommendations for extended window acute stroke therapy trials. Stroke. 2009;40(7):2594–600.
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.552554
pubmed: 19478212
pmcid: 2761073
Pullen N, Birch CL, Douglas GJ, Hussain Q, Pruimboom-Brees I, Walley RJ. The translational challenge in the development of new and effective therapies for endometriosis: a review of confidence from published preclinical efficacy studies. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):791–802.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr030
pubmed: 21733981
Stewart WC, Magrath GN, Demos CM, Nelson LA, Stewart JA. Predictive value of the efficacy of glaucoma medications in animal models: preclinical to regulatory studies. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(10):1355–422.
doi: 10.1136/bjo.2010.188508
pubmed: 21169272
International Council on Harmonisation. General considerations for clinical studies E8(R1). 2021. Available from: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E8-R1_Guideline_Step4_2022_0204%20%281%29.pdf . [cited 2022 May 4].
Guidance on nonclinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials and marketing authorization for pharmaceuticals M3(R2). 2009. Available from: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/M3_R2__Guideline.pdf . [cited 2022 May 4].
Grankvist H, Kimmelman J. How do researchers decide early clinical trials? Med Health Care Philos. 2016;19(2):191–8.
doi: 10.1007/s11019-016-9685-6
pubmed: 26833467
Health Canada. Preparation of clinical trial applications for use of cell therapy products in humans. Health Canada - Publications; 2015. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/applications-submissions/guidance-documents/clinical-trials/guidance-document-preparation-clinical-trial-applications-use-cell-therapy-products-humans.html#a1a . [cited 2023 Mar 2].
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: preclinical assessment of investigational cellular and gene therapy products; availability. notices. Fed Regist. 2013;78(227):70307.
Langhof H, Chin WWL, Wieschowski S, Federico C, Kimmelman J, Strech D. Preclinical efficacy in therapeutic area guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency: a cross-sectional study. Br J Pharmacol. 2018;175(22):4229–38.
doi: 10.1111/bph.14485
pubmed: 30153701
pmcid: 6193882
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci IS. 2010;5(1):69–69.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
pubmed: 20854677
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616
Pawliuk C, Brown HL, Widger K, Dewan T, Hermansen AM, Grégoire MC, et al. Optimising the process for conducting scoping reviews. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2021Dec;26(6):312.
doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111452
pubmed: 33087454
Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.
doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
pubmed: 26134548
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022Apr 1;20(4):953–68.
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242
pubmed: 35102103
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID). ClinRegs Database. 2023. Available from: https://clinregs.niaid.nih.gov/ . [cited 2023 May 5].
European Medicines Agency. Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-human and early clinical trials with investigational medicinal products. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/strategies-identify-mitigate-risks-first-human-early-clinical-trials-investigational-medicinal . [cited 2023 Jun 16].
European Medicines Agency. CHMP/CAT position statement on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and advanced therapy medicinal products. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/creutzfeldt-jakob-disease-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-scientific-guideline . [cited 2023 Jun 16].
United States Food and Drug Administration. New drug and biological drug products: Evidence needed to demonstrate effectiveness of new drugs when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. Available from: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/05/31/02-13583/new-drug-and-biological-drug-products-evidence-needed-to-demonstrate-effectiveness-of-new-drugs-when . [cited 2023 Jun 16].
Center for biologics evaluation and research. Product development under the animal rule. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/product-development-under-animal-rule . [cited 2023 Jun 16].
International Council on Harmonisation. ICH E2C(R2) Periodic benefit-risk evaluation report. 2012. Available from: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E2C_R2_Guideline.pdf . [cited 2024 Apr 25].
Good Clinical Trials Collaborative. Guidance for good randomized clinical trials. 2023. Available from: https://www.goodtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/GCTC-guidance-FINAL-v1.1-November-2023.pdf .
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7):e3000410.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410
pubmed: 32663219
pmcid: 7360023
Vollert J, Schenker E, Macleod M, Bespalov A, Wuerbel H, Michel M, et al. Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals. BMJ Open Sci. 2020;4(1):e100046–e100046.
pubmed: 35047688
pmcid: 8647591