Regulatory and operational challenges in conducting Asian International Academic Trial for expanding the indications of cancer drugs.

Abstract

There are many differences between Asian regions in terms of the regulatory requirements and operational procedures in conducting international academic clinical trials for the approval of new drugs. The National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan has launched an international investigator‐initiated registration‐directed trial (IIRDT) in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, aiming at obtaining pharmaceutical approval in participating regions. Differences in regulatory and operational procedures were identified while coordinating the trial. In Japan, regulatory authority reviews should be performed after approval by institutional review boards for IIRDT, whereas in other regions these can be done in parallel. There were disparities in Good Manufacturing Practice‐related documents between regions. Several differences were found regarding investigational product (IP) management, specifically concerning labeling, import/export procedures, and customs clearance costs. On the other hand, safety reporting procedures were relatively well‐harmonized in accordance with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (ICH‐E2A). Regions also differed in per‐patient costs, due to varying regulations for academic registration‐directed trials. In conclusion, the observed differences among Asian regions should be harmonized to facilitate international academic trials in Asia and thus resolve unmet patient needs worldwide. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? International clinical trials have become common because they make it possible to accrue patients faster and obtain new drug approval in wider areas. However, pharmaceutical regulatory differences hinder the efficient conduct of international clinical trials, especially in academia. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? We conducted an academic international clinical trial on new drug applications in four Asian countries and clarified pharmaceutical regulatory differences and operational difficulties. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? The study identified differences between countries in terms of regulatory affairs, institutional review board (IRB) review processes, investigational new drug (IND) dossiers, investigational product (IP) management procedures, and clinical trial costs, while safety reporting procedures were relatively harmonized. Japan utilizes investigator‐initiated registration‐directed trials, an advanced regulatory system for new drug application by academia, but the other countries do not. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? Harmonization of pharmaceutical regulations and trial initiation procedures, and regulatory reform of clinical trial costs are important to accelerate academic international clinical trials for new drug applications.