1 / 13

Comments on FDA Concept Paper

Comments on FDA Concept Paper. Premarketing Risk Assessment. Sidney N. Kahn, MD, PhD President Pharmacovigilance & Risk Management, Inc. www.pvrm.com. General comments on risk management. Benefit-risk optimization helps and requires all stakeholders

tudor
Télécharger la présentation

Comments on FDA Concept Paper

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comments on FDA Concept Paper Premarketing Risk Assessment Sidney N. Kahn, MD, PhD President Pharmacovigilance & Risk Management, Inc. www.pvrm.com

  2. General comments on risk management • Benefit-risk optimization helps and requires all stakeholders • FDA commendation for forward thinking and stakeholder involvement • Caveats • danger of disproportionate reaction to very small but visible risk • adoption of untried and untested methods based on theoretical considerations of effectiveness and misperceptions of risk • “The ultimate goal …is to ensure that efforts and costs …are expended on effective processes that achieve a positive benefit/risk balance”

  3. Premarketing Risk Assessment - omission • Increase emphasis on data quality • cf. case follow-up in proposed rule on Safety Reporting Requirements (FR, March 14, 2003) • refer to “quality case” components defined by CIOMS-V

  4. Trial size – acute use / serious conditions • Impossible to generalize for unspecified safety analyses • quantitative analysis of prespecified safety endpoints with known study population background rate • dependent on patient population, trial design, type of comparator • Recommendation • continue current ad hoc safety data collection for most trials • better qualitative data on individual important adverse events as or more important than quantitative information

  5. Trial size – chronic use • Most AEs of concern idiosyncratic, rare • If common, will be detected during development and usually lead to program termination • Low-frequency AEs, even if anticipated, unlikely to be detected in any reasonably sized dataset, including large simple safety studies (“rule of 3”)

  6. Subgroup analysis • Meaningful subgroup differences often difficult to demonstrate even for efficacy (single prespecified endpoint) • Proposed analyses unlikely to have power to find meaningful differences • Subgroup effects markedly different from overall study population likely to be detected using current methods • Continue to conduct exploratory studies in relatively homogenous patient subgroups, e.g. elderly, renally impaired

  7. Detection of unanticipated interactions • Catch-22; anticipating the unanticipated! • Suggestions: • identify existing drug usage patterns in target population • compare PK/PD of investigational agent with common / known interacting products • formal interaction studies of most likely/hazardous combinations • concomitant treatment with less obviously interacting products for some subjects in later phase III studies • compare incidences of AEs with “clean” study population • identify trends for subsequent study and monitoring

  8. Biomarkers - caveats • False positive / false negative results • Many mild “abnormalities” reflect only biological and/or analytical variability • Mechanisms of common mild abnormalities not necessarily the same as those that lead to rare, severe outcomes

  9. Biomarkers - suggestions • Consider both absolute and relative (vs. individual baseline) values • Using data from NDAs/BLAs, FDA could • develop criteria for optimal biomarker sensitivity and specificity • establish rates of different degrees of abnormality in treated and control populations • correlate results with documented clinical outcomes in clinical trials and marketed use • Pharmaceutical companies should allow use of proprietary submission data for this purpose.

  10. Optimizing AE descriptions for signal detection - I • Great potential merit, requires refinement • Current rigid adherence to verbatim term for codification • investigator misclassification; e.g. “abnormal LFTs” for jaundice, “acute liver failure” without encephalopathy, coagulopathy, or jaundice • inconsistent clinical classification, e.g. similar findings reported variously as hepatitis, abnormal liver function, elevated aminotransferases and jaundice, etc.

  11. Optimizing AE descriptions for signal detection - II • PvRM strongly supports FDA collaboration with sponsors to develop harmonized term definitions • Ensuring consistency / minimizing subjectivity requires uniform approach across all sponsors and FDA offices and divisions – cannot be done piecemeal / ad hoc • Ideally, should be internationally agreed / acceptable to regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions • Limited number of definitions developed (“Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions: Definitions of Terms and Criteria for Their Use” CIOMS, Geneva, 1999).

  12. Additional viewpoint – CIOMS-VI (working draft) • Events of critical importance consistently defined using standard criteria (e.g. acute liver failure), or in consultation with appropriate experts • Describe definitions and requirements for use of particular terms in protocol and product safety plan • Rarely, overrule investigator’s diagnosis for analysis if clearly erroneous; document reason, maintain original verbatim for audit, show both terms in study AE tables • If not reported, assign probable diagnosis when signs, symptoms, and/or treatment strongly suggest a defined syndrome (e.g. chest pain, elevated CK, acute thrombolytic treatment = myocardial infarction)

  13. Thank you

More Related