As Prescribed

Earlier this year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published new draft guidance substantially revising the agency’s previous guidance on the Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs). Since the original guidance was published in 2006, the agency has noticed an uptick in not only DMC usage but also broader DMC functions. As DMC use has changed, the guidance provides detailed considerations for sponsors regarding a variety of areas, including when a DMC may be appropriate, the scope of DMC responsibilities, and how to properly set up a DMC.

Substantial evidence, the evidentiary standard for effectiveness established in 1962 by the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), is the measure against which all drugs and biologics are approved in the United States. This standard is, in large part, what makes the FDA’s approval standard often considered the worldwide “gold standard” for drug approvals. Now, recent draft guidance issued by FDA looks to refine this standard even further.

FDA recently issued draft guidance with updated recommendations for implementing the International Council for Harmonisation’s (ICH’s) guidelines on good clinical practice (GCP). The goal of the draft guidance is to modernize the design and conduct of clinical trials, making them more agile while maintaining data integrity and participant protections. FDA has initiated a public consultation period, seeking feedback on the guidance and how its recommendations should be applied to increasingly diverse trial types and data sources.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a final guidance pertaining to quality considerations for clinical research involving cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds,” which adds minor updates to a 2020 draft guidance. The final guidance follows the passage of the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act and provides key clarifications on quality requirements for cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds used in clinical research.

The accelerated approval pathway (i.e., the pathway that permits FDA to rely on surrogate or intermediate endpoints for the approval of a drug for serious conditions with unmet medical needs) has proven to be an important tool to provide patients with access to promising products. By example, as of June 2021, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research approved 269 drug and biologic products via accelerated approval. This does not include Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research approvals, which, as reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, has granted more than 155 accelerated approvals for oncology products alone.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new guidance describing its current recommendations with respect to master protocols for the evaluation of drugs and biologics to treat or prevent COVID-19. While somewhat belated, this guidance may shed light on FDA’s approach to master protocols for other disease states/products.

FDA recently issued its first clinicaltrials.gov notice of noncompliance to a clinical trial sponsor for failure to submit clinical trial results to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) databank. Despite having authority to issues such notices since the 2007 passage of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA), FDA has not previously exercised its clinicaltrials.gov enforcement authority.

In light of the growing coronavirus (COVID-19) public health challenge, the FDA issued guidance on March 18 on general considerations for conducting clinical trials of medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the increasing numbers of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and the declaration of a global pandemic by the World Health Organization, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries are assessing how this situation may impact business operations.

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a potentially significant opinion with respect to ClinicalTrials.gov results posting on February 24. If upheld, clinical study sponsors and investigators may need to post certain study results for 10 years’ worth of clinical trials (2007–2017), which the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had previously excluded from the requirement.