slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Janet Woodcock, MD Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Janet Woodcock, MD Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 43

Janet Woodcock, MD Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 162 Views
  • Uploaded on

Today ’ s Biomedical Innovation: “ Lost in Translation”?. QB3 Entrepreneurs ’ Discussion University of California, San Francisco Thursday, April 26, 2012. Janet Woodcock, MD Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Janet Woodcock, MD Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration' - illiana-spencer


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Today’s Biomedical Innovation:

“Lost in Translation”?

QB3 Entrepreneurs’ Discussion

University of California, San Francisco

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Janet Woodcock, MD

Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Food and Drug Administration

will new scientific discoveries revolutionize treatment of disease soon
Will New Scientific Discoveries Revolutionize Treatment of Disease (Soon)?
  • Advances in both science and technology are providing unprecedented opportunities for new approaches to disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment
  • However, in some senses, the barriers to successful development have never been higher
  • New paradigms for evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions must be developed
    • Faster
    • More efficient
    • But equally or more informative
drug development
Drug Development

Currently takes more than 10 years and requires an investment of over $1B to bring a single innovative drug to market

Clinical investigation, premarket application, and postmarket stages are heavily regulated in most developed countries

Ongoing concern about ability of the drug development enterprise to translate innovative science and bring needed therapies to market

Ongoing concern about the ability, and willingness, of societies to pay for novel therapies

slide4

DRUG

DISCOVERY

PRE

CLINICAL

CLINICAL TRIALS

FDA

REVIEW

LARGE

SCALE

MFG

5,000-10,000

COMPOUNDS

250

ONE

FDA-

APPROVED

DRUG

5

PRE-DISCOVERY

PHASE 4: POST MARKETING SURVEILLANCE

NDA SUBMITTED TO FDA

IND SUBMITTED TO FDA

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

Number of Volunteers

20-100

100-500

1000-5000

3-6 YEARS

6-7 YEARS

0.5-2

YEARS

Research and Development Process

SOURCE: PhRMA 2008, Stages of Drug Development Process and attrition rate of compounds

as they travel through the drug development process over time.

for 12 phrma companies research spending vs new drugs approved during the period 1997 2011
For 12 PhRMA companiesResearch Spending vs New Drugs Approved during the Period 1997-2011
private public research and development spending
Private & PublicResearch and Development Spending

Source: Burrill & Company, PhRMA, NIH Office of Budget

fda nme approvals
FDA NME Approvals
  • Basically stable output over long term (vs increased investment in basic research and R&D)
  • Decline from late 1990s reflects primarily decrease in submission of “me-too” drugs: now difficult to get on formulary
  • FDA seeing increased novelty in applications over recent 5 year period; more “game-changing” therapies
  • Possibly reflects adjustment of industry strategies
  • PDUFA program (currently up for re-authorization) ensures that review times are relatively predicatable
in 2011 cder approved 30 nmes the highest total of nmes approved in seven years
In 2011, CDER approved 30 NMEs,the highest total of NMEs approved in seven years

*The final number of NME Applications filed in 2011 is projected, pending final validation of the data and dependent outcome of 12 applications submitted in late 2011.

cder met review goal dates for 97 of the new molecular entities approved in 2011
CDER met review goal datesfor 97% of the new molecular entities approved in 2011

Met PDUFA Target Dates

Adcetris

Arcapta

Benlysta

Brilinta

Caprelsa

Darilesp

Datscan

Dificid

Edarbi

Edurant

Eylea

Ferriprox

Firazyr

Gadavist

Horizant

Incivek

Jakafi

Natroba

Nulojix

Onfi

Potiga

Tradjenta

Victrelis

Viibryd

Xalkori

Xarelto

Yervoy

Zelboraf

Zytiga

First Cycle Approval

Adcetris

Benlysta

Caprelsa

Dificid

Edarbi

Edurant

Erwinaze

Eylea

Gadavist

Incivek

Jakafi

Onfi

Tradjenta

Victrelis

Viibryd

Xalkori

Yervoy

Zelboraf

Zytiga

innovation in drug approvals for 2011
Innovation in drug approvals for 2011

Approved First in the U.S.

Adcetris

Benlysta

Caprelsa

Dificid

Edarbi

Edurant

Eylea

Incivek

Horizant

Jakafi

Natroba

Nulojix

Tradjenta

Victrelis

Viibryd

Xalkori

Yervoy

Zelboraf

Zytiga

Orphan Drug Approvals

Adcetris

Caprelsa

Erwinaze

Ferriprox

Firazyr

Jakafi

Nulojix

Onfi

Xalkori

Yervoy

Zelboraf

First in-Class Drugs

Adcetris

Benlysta

Darilesp

Firazyr

Jakafi

Nulojix

Potiga

Victrelis

Xalkori

Yervoy

Zelboraf

Zytiga

role of regulatory standards
Role of Regulatory Standards
  • Certainly some of the costs are driven by increased expectations—over the last several decades--about evaluating the performance of the drug (both for safety and efficacy) before it goes on the market
  • Even after an expenditure of $1B per successful drug, multiple important clinical questions remain unanswered (e.g. dose and regimen, use with other therapies, optimal duration of therapy, consequences of long-term use)
  • Academic clinical community constantly clamors for more data to be generated premarket and postmarket
  • Payer community has rising expectations—e.g., Europe
key issues
Key Issues
  • How to balance information needs of prescribers, patients and payers against desire for speedy access to better therapies (more effective, less toxic etc.) on the part of prescribers and patients?
  • How to keep the biomedical innovation sector alive with a viable business model, but also keep new innovations affordable for society?
  • How to translate the vast amount of new knowledge about human health and disease efficiently, rather than using the time-consuming, costly and inefficient methods currently in place?
  • Is there a more prominent role for the academic biomedical sector?
can the academic biomedical sector become a more integral part of the drug development ecosystem

Can the Academic Biomedical Sector Become a more Integral Part of the DrugDevelopmentEcosystem?

background a very long time ago
Background: A Very Long Time Ago

Professors were engaged in drug discovery (and experimented upon themselves and their grad students)

Industry commercialized discoveries

Industry largely unregulated

background 1950 60s
Background: 1950-60s

Growth of mainstream (and other) pharmaceutical houses

1000’s of unstudied, possibly ineffective drugs on the market

Start of a long period of seminal drug discoveries: cardiovascular disease; infectious disease; cancer; psychiatric disorders

Beginning of the requirement to show drug efficacy (1962)

modern era
“Modern Era”
  • Huge pharmaceutical companies: massive “fully integrated” drug discovery and development enterprises
  • Academic focus on molecular biology of health and disease: “basic biomedical science”
  • Outpouring of novel therapies and also x’s in a class (e.g., 17 NSAIDS)
  • Society increasingly less impressed with novelty
    • Decreased tolerance of uncertainty
    • Regulators respond with more testing requirements
    • Cost effectiveness questions arise
slide17
Now
  • Pharmaceutical industry: progressively greater investment and diminished return
  • Biotech: success, but can society afford the products?
  • Venture capital: fleeing medical products sector
  • Academia: 30 year investment in biomedical research sector—will funding keep rising? What is the academic role in translational research?
  • Regulators blamed for:
    • Current problems in drug development
    • Excess conservatism
    • Excess enthusiasm
future opportunities for new roles and relationships to improve process
Future: Opportunities for New Roles and Relationships to Improve Process
  • Pharmaceutical Sector Competencies
    • Rigor
    • Medicinal chemistry
    • High throughput screening
    • Lead optimization
    • Manufacturing and scale up
    • Late phase development
    • Marketing and distribution
future potential shift in roles
Future: Potential Shift in Roles?
  • Academic Strengths
    • Molecular biology of target; pathways; pathogenesis
    • Animals and in vitro models and testing scenarios; in depth disease understanding
    • Relationships with relevant patients
    • Proximity of patients and laboratory
future role of academia in drug discovery and development
Future Role of Academia in Drug Discovery and Development

Partnering with industry in discovery and translation of specific products or therapeutic areas

Research leading to new evaluative tools for predicting, understanding and assessing the effects of medical products in the relevant species (people)

Hubs for clinical trial networks that incorporate community practitioners and also have the capacity for integration of sophisticated bench science

role of academia urgent need for new evaluative tools
Role of Academia: Urgent Need for New Evaluative Tools
  • Drug manufacturing and scale up
    • Multiple academic consortia working on this; poorly funded
  • Safety evaluation: little changed in decades
    • Traditional empirical evaluation in animals
    • Human safety evaluation a “side effect” of efficacy evaluation
  • Efficacy evaluation: Predicting and confirming efficacy still a huge challenge; generally still empirical
    • Affects academic efforts as well as industrial
    • Many late failures due to efficacy problems
discovery and translation of specific innovations
Discovery and Translation of Specific Innovations
  • “Academic based drug development”
  • Thousands of less common disorders that are not subject to industrial development
  • Specific pathways or mechanisms that have been the subject of extensive research in a particular laboratory
  • Early bench to bedside translation
    • Proof of concept studies
    • Pharmacodynamic evaluations
streamlining the bench to bedside transition
Streamlining the Bench to Bedside Transition
  • “Exploratory IND” guidance
    • Tailor required toxicology studies to proposed investigations
    • Can be significantly reduced for single dose or microdose trials, or brief administration
  • Phase 1 trial cGMPs
    • Remove phase 1 clinical trial material from extensive cGMP requirements in regulations
    • These were written for commercial products
    • Companion guidance: ability to use laboratory produced material with specific safeguards
development of evaluative tools a tremendously neglected area
Development of Evaluative Tools:A Tremendously Neglected Area
  • Better science is needed to both predict and assess safety and efficacy of investigational products
  • Now: “Build an airplane and then see if it can fly”
  • Major causes of failure in Phase 3 clinical development
    • Lack of effectiveness against placebo or active
    • Unexpected drug toxicity
    • Commercial non-viability (not better than existing therapy)
evaluative tools
Evaluative Tools
  • Current drug development might be viewed as what physics would be without engineering
  • Large amount of biochemical knowledge but few ways to assess state of whole organism and impact of interventions at the organism level
  • Most assessment tools are not standardized so limited ability to compare one experiment to another
  • Little insight into sources of variability of treatment response, even current therapies
  • As a result, most clinical development programs are “brute force” empirical efforts: extremely costly and time-consuming
safety evaluation opportunities
Safety Evaluation: Opportunities
  • Routine rat or dog studies good for predicting safe first-in-human dose but not for understanding less common toxicities
  • Structure Activity Relationships
    • FDA has collaborated to make some screening programs available that correlate computer readable structural motifs with known animal or clinical adverse outcomes from FDA databases
    • Opportunities to link structure with other assays that are becoming available and also do more extensive link to clinical data
safety evaluation opportunities1
Safety Evaluation: Opportunities
  • Systems biology approach to drug toxicity
  • Screens for off-target receptor binding
  • Gene expression in response to drug exposure: safety pharmacogenomics
  • Cellular systems for assessing drug responses broadly
  • Human pharmacogenomics: not just drug metabolism
    • Allelic variability in drug target
    • Uncommon alleles increasing risk of major drug toxicity
development of biomarkers for prediction of safety or efficacy
Development of Biomarkers for Prediction of Safety or Efficacy
  • Many potential biomarkers discovered in academic laboratories but never understood sufficiently for:
    • Use in drug development
    • Regulatory decision making
  • FDA attempting to introduce more rigorous process as part of “Critical Path Initiative”
  • FDA Guidance on “Drug Development Tools” qualification process: US and EU will work with groups on qualifying new tools for use in drug development
  • A central role for academic scientists
predicting measuring and improving efficacy
Predicting, Measuring, and Improving Efficacy
  • New endpoints
  • New trial designs
  • Use of biomarkers to subset disease ( prognostic or response predictors)
    • Jupitor trial (C-reactive protein; rosuvastatin)
    • Screening tumors for activating pathways
    • Known as “enrichment”, CDER guidance
  • Use of patient-reported outcomes
  • Conducting natural history studies to understand disease course—particularly in rare diseases
new endpoints
New Endpoints

Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH)

Scientific work on endpoints and clinical trial designs

FNIH and the Biomarkers Consortium are developing endpoints for clinical trials in skin infections and community acquired pneumonia

Helps reduce uncertainty around using a new endpoint or trial design

Includes academia, industry, IDSA, NIH, and FDA

new endpoints in pain trials
New Endpoints in Pain Trials

Why ACTION?

Clinical studies, particularly efficacy trials, notoriously flawed for analgesic drug development

Frequent failed studies with drugs known to be effective

Extremely small treatment effects even when successful

Multiple causes, e.g.:

Large placebo effect

Missing data

Study design flaws

Study analysis flaws

Investigator quality

Frequent use of foreign sites

new endpoints1
New Endpoints

Innovative clinical trial design to facilitate schizophrenia drug development…

FDA and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

“MATRICS” clinical trial guidelines designed to facilitate novel compound development to treat cognitive impairment from schizophrenia (MATRICS) clinical trial guidelines for cognitive-enhancing drugs in schizophrenia

developing new biomarkers and patient reported outcomes measures pros
Developing New Biomarkers and Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROs)

C-Path Institute (nonprofit): submitted new biomarkers for drug induced kidney injury (data produced by a consortium); FDA and EMA accepted; undergoing clinical evaluation

PROMIS (NIH PRO effort)

C-Path Institute: PROs for specific diseases for qualification

quantitative disease drug trial models
Quantitative Disease-Drug-Trial Models

Diverse

Expertise

Disease

Model

Drug

Model

Trial

Model

FDA Data

  • Biology
  • Natural Progression
  • Placebo
  • Biomarker-Outcome
  • Pharmacology
    • Effectiveness
    • Safety
      • Early-Late
  • Preclinical-Healthy-Patient
  • Patient Population
  • Drop-out
  • Compliance

Disease-drug-trial models are mathematical representations of the time course of

biomarker-clinical outcomes, placebo effects, drug’s pharmacologic effects and trial execution

characteristics for both the desired and undesired responses, and across experiments.

Physiology

quantitative disease trial models alzheimer disease
Quantitative Disease-Trial Models:Alzheimer Disease

Diverse

Expertise

FDA Data

Disease

Model

Trial

Model

  • Natural Progression
  • Placebo Response
  • Patient Population
  • Drop-out

Physiology

adaptive design with biomarkers
Adaptive Design with Biomarkers

I-Spy 2: screening trial for investigational breast cancer drugs

Biomarker Consortium--- public/private partnership: FDA / NIH / PhRMA companies

Attempts to identify biomarker-defined response subgroups

Adaptive design against standard-of-care

Ability to screen multiple investigational agents in one trial

Selected compounds could have rapid route to accelerated approval based on larger trial in responsive subgroup

re engineering the clinical research enterprise
Re-engineering the Clinical Research Enterprise
  • Currently, clinical research is:
    • Extremely expensive
    • Unpleasant for most participants
    • Inefficient
    • Not totally reliable
    • Unavailable for the vast majority of patients (e.g., cancer patients)
clinical research in drug development
Clinical Research in Drug Development
  • Unique clinical trial at multiple stages of development
  • New investigators, support personnel, unique CRFs
  • Long lead time to set up
  • Frequently slow recruitment, many sites fail to recruit adequately
  • Lack of involvement of community practitioners, so that available universe of patient limited, often sites are competing for patients for several protocols
  • Rapid movement of clinical trials in drug development overseas
how to address problem
How to Address Problem?
  • Consider clinical trial networks with the capacity to perform multiple trials
  • Include community practitioners with appropriate logistical support
  • Academic medical centers as hubs
  • Standardized CRF templates for much of data collection
  • Ultimately improve quality of data, involve community in clinical research
the clinical trials transformation initiative ctti
The Clinical Trials TransformationInitiative (CTTI)

Formed in 2008

FDA and Duke University - founding members of a public-private partnership

Members include stakeholders from government, industry, academia, patient and consumer representatives, clinical investigators, professional societies, and clinical research organizations

ctti current projects
CTTI Current Projects

Improving the public interface for use of aggregate data in clinicaltrials.Gov

Site metrics for study start up

Building quality in

Use of central IRB for multicenter clinical trials

Sponsor

Patient

Investigator

IND Safety

Reporting

summary
Summary

There are major problems with current drug development paradigms

New scientific knowledge provides huge opportunity for improvement

The biomedical research community should have a greater role in many aspects of drug discovery and development

Future drug development must include many innovative partnerships

The clinical research enterprise in the US must be transformed