Center For Biologics Evaluation And Research Research Articles

2023 in review: FDA approvals of new medicines

An analysis of all new entities approved by both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) identified the approval of 69 new entities in the year 2023, 50 % more than in the previous year. Oncology drugs tied with congenital and infectious diseases drugs for the most approvals. Although orphan and priority approvals continued at a high pace, the rate of fast-track approvals continued to decline. The rate of industry consolidation also picked up again after decreasing slightly in 2022.

2022 in review: FDA approvals of new medicines

An accounting of all new entities approved by both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) identified the approval of 44 new entities in the year 2022. Oncology-based drugs continued to be the most popular indication for these medicines. Likewise, orphan indications encompassed more than half of new drug approvals. The number of new entities approved in 2022 declined from its peak after 5 years of more than 50 annual approvals. Likewise, the rate of consolidations slowed somewhat, among both new entries in the realm of clinical-stage developers and more established organizations.

United States Food and Drug Administration Regulation of Human Cells, Tissues, and Gene Therapies.

Research and development of gene therapies and cell- or tissue-based therapies has experienced exponential growth in recent decades and the potential for these products to treat diverse, often rare, clinical indications is promising. The Office of Therapeutic Products (OTP) in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) is responsible for the regulation of these products, among others, throughout the entire product lifecycle. This chapter provides an overview of the science- and data-driven approach to US FDA regulatory oversight of cell and genetherapy (CGT) products to ensure their safety and efficacy.

Bayesian Methods in Human Drug and Biological Products Development in CDER and CBER.

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been leaders in protecting and promoting the U.S. public health by helping to ensure that safe and effective drugs and biological products are available in the United States for those who need them. The null hypothesis significance testing approach, along with other considerations, is typically used to demonstrate the effectiveness of a drug or biological product. The Bayesian framework presents an alternative approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment. This article discusses the Bayesian framework for drug and biological product development, highlights key settings in which Bayesian approaches may be appropriate, and provides recent examples of the use of Bayesian approaches within CDER and CBER.

A Versatile and Scalable Platform That Streamlines Data Collection for Patient-Centered Studies: Usability and Feasibility Study.

BackgroundThe Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) established the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) Initiative with several objectives, including the expansion and enhancement of CBER’s access to fit-for-purpose data sources, analytics, tools, and infrastructures to improve the understanding of patient experiences with conditions related to CBER-regulated products. Owing to existing challenges in data collection, especially for rare disease research, CBER recognized the need for a comprehensive platform where study coordinators can engage with study participants and design and deploy studies while patients or caregivers could enroll, consent, and securely participate as well.ObjectiveThis study aimed to increase awareness and describe the design, development, and novelty of the Survey of Health and Patient Experience (SHAPE) platform, its functionality and application, quality improvement efforts, open-source availability, and plans for enhancement.MethodsSHAPE is hosted in a Google Cloud environment and comprises 3 parts: the administrator application, participant app, and application programming interface. The administrator can build a study comprising a set of questionnaires and self-report entries through the app. Once the study is deployed, the participant can access the app, consent to the study, and complete its components. To build SHAPE to be scalable and flexible, we leveraged the open-source software development kit, Ionic Framework. This enabled the building and deploying of apps across platforms, including iOS, Android, and progressive web applications, from a single codebase by using standardized web technologies. SHAPE has been integrated with a leading Health Level 7 (HL7®) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) application programming interface platform, 1upHealth, which allows participants to consent to 1-time data pull of their electronic health records. We used an agile-based process that engaged multiple stakeholders in SHAPE’s design and development.ResultsSHAPE allows study coordinators to plan, develop, and deploy questionnaires to obtain important end points directly from patients or caregivers. Electronic health record integration enables access to patient health records, which can validate and enhance the accuracy of data-capture methods. The administrator can then download the study data into HL7® FHIR®–formatted JSON files. In this paper, we illustrate how study coordinators can use SHAPE to design patient-centered studies. We demonstrate its broad applicability through a hypothetical type 1 diabetes cohort study and an ongoing pilot study on metachromatic leukodystrophy to implement best practices for designing a regulatory-grade natural history study for rare diseases.ConclusionsSHAPE is an intuitive and comprehensive data-collection tool for a variety of clinical studies. Further customization of this versatile and scalable platform allows for multiple use cases. SHAPE can capture patient perspectives and clinical data, thereby providing regulators, clinicians, researchers, and patient advocacy organizations with data to inform drug development and improve patient outcomes.

PCR39 Patient and Caregiver Diversity in FDA Patient Engagement Activities and CBER-Regulated Therapeutics: A Review of the Literature

This review of literature is aim one of a multipronged pilot project to understand what is known about current research and efforts related to increasing diverse patient engagement in drug development and factors that contribute to variances in knowledge of- and participation in- patient engagement activities relevant to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) regulated products for food allergies. A two-fold approach was used to conduct this review: (1) a scoping systematic literature, and (2) a review of grey literature. Research abstracts were screened and reviewed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for articles published between years 2012-2021. All abstracts were screened by two trained researchers and reviewed by a third using predefined inclusion criteria. Grey literature was information identified from food allergy organization websites and screened for inclusion by two trained researchers following prespecified criteria. A Microsoft excel® tracking tool was built to organize extracted data. Finally, a framework developed by the National Health Council (NHC) was adapted and used to synthesize the extracted data for both approaches. Seven out of 1,370 research abstracts were included for full text data analysis. In most (86%), patients and caregivers were solely study participants, compared to one study (14%) in which they were actively involved in informing the research process. Sixteen organization websites were identified for screening—seven of which were included for analysis. 71.4% (5/7 organizations) reported engagement opportunities for patients/caregivers but did not explicitly share how diverse populations were encouraged to engage. The importance of diverse patient engagement in food allergy therapeutic development has been stressed by both patient organizations and in research. However, further exploration is needed in how to meaningfully engage diverse groups of patients and caregivers impacted by food allergies to help inform regulatory decision-making

Phase 3 Randomized, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate Safety, Immunogenicity, and Lot-to-Lot Consistency of an Adjuvanted Cell Culture-Derived, H5N1 Subunit Influenza Virus Vaccine in Healthy Adult Subjects.

A cell-based process may be better suited for vaccine production during a highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) pandemic. This was a phase 3, randomized, controlled, observer-blind, multicenter study evaluated safety, immunogenicity, and lot-to-lot consistency of two doses of a MF59-adjuvanted, H5N1 influenza pandemic vaccine manufactured on a cell culture platform (aH5N1c) in 3196 healthy adult subjects, stratified into two age groups: 18 to <65 and ≥65 years. Immunogenicity was measured using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers. HI antibody responses increased after the first aH5N1c vaccine dose, and 3 weeks after the second vaccination (Day 43), age-appropriate US Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and former European Medicines Authority Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (EMA CHMP) immunogenicity criteria were met. Six months after the first vaccination, HI titers were above baseline but no longer met CBER and CHMP criteria. No relevant changes over time were seen in placebo subjects. Solicited AEs were more frequent in the active treatment than the placebo group, primarily due to injection site pain. No serious adverse events (SAEs) related to aH5N1c- were reported. aH5N1c influenza vaccine elicited high levels of antibodies following two vaccinations administered 21 days apart and met both CBER and former CHMP immunogenicity criteria at Day 43 among both younger and older adults with a clinically acceptable safety profile. Consistency of the three consecutive aH5N1c vaccine lots was demonstrated (NCT02839330).

Opportunities and challenges for applying model-informed drug development approaches to gene therapies.

As part of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VI commitments, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) are conducting a model‐informed drug development (MIDD) pilot program. Sponsor(s) who apply and are selected will be granted meetings that aim to facilitate the application of MIDD approaches throughout the product development lifecycle and the regulatory process. Due to their complex mechanisms of action and limited clinical experience, cell and gene therapies have the potential to benefit from the application of MIDD methods, which may facilitate their safety and efficacy evaluations. Leveraging data that are generated from all stages of drug development into appropriate modeling and simulation techniques that inform decisions remains challenging. Additional discussions regarding the application of quantitative modeling approaches to drug development decisions, such as through the MIDD pilot program, may be crucial for both the sponsor(s) and regulatory review teams. Here, we share some perspectives on the opportunities and challenges for utilizing MIDD approaches for product review, which we hope will encourage investigators to publish their experiences and application of MIDD in gene therapy product development.

US FDA perspective: getting back into high gear – driving cell and gene therapy forward through 2022 and beyond

<div class="authors authors-lg"><div class="author"><div class="author-img"><img src="https://bioinsights.blob.core.windows.net/uploads/Peter Marks_3765 copy.jpg" data-image="1"></div><div class="author-det"> Peter Marks, MD, PhD, is the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the Food and Drug Administration. The center is responsible for assuring the safety and effectiveness of biological products, including vaccines, allergenic products, blood and blood products, and cellular, tissue, and gene therapies. </div></div></div>

A year like no other: reflecting on the challenges of 2020, and looking to regain momentum for cell and gene therapy in 2021

<div class="authors authors-lg"><div class="author"><div class="author-img"><img src="https://cdn.insights.bio/uploads/Peter Marks_3765 sq.jpg" data-image="1"></div><div class="author-det"> <!--StartFragment--><b>Peter Marks</b> is the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the Food and Drug Administration. The center is responsible for assuring the safety and effectiveness of biological products, including vaccines, allergenic products, blood and blood products, and cellular, tissue, and gene therapies.<!--EndFragment-->&nbsp; </div></div></div>

The Role of Patients in Alopecia Areata Endpoint Development: Understanding Physical Signs and Symptoms.

Meaningful patient input to understand disease experience and patient expectations for improvement with treatment is essential for the selection and development of outcome measures for alopecia areata (AA) clinical trials. This study explored the physical signs and symptoms of AA through 30 semistructured interviews with adult (n= 25) and adolescent (n= 5) patients experienced with severe or very severe AA. Scalp hair loss was overwhelmingly the most important sign and symptom of AA. Nearly all patients (90%) considered scalp hair loss in their top three most bothersome physical signs and symptoms of AA, with 77% (n= 23) naming scalp hair loss as the most bothersome symptom. Other identified signs and symptoms in the top three most bothersome included eyebrow, eyelash, nose, body, and facial hair loss, as well as eye irritation and nail damage and/or appearance. Eyebrow (16%, n= 4), eyelash (4%, n= 1), nasal (4%, n= 1), and body (4%, n= 1) hair loss were identified by seven adult patients as the most bothersome signs and symptoms of AA. Conceptual saturation confirmed that a comprehensive understanding of this patient population's physical AA-related signs and symptoms was obtained. These findings indicate that the primary objective for new AA treatments for this patient population should be meaningful improvement in scalp hair growth to address the most troubling unmet need.

Phase-3 Randomized Controlled Trials on Exclusion of Participants With Kidney Disease in COVID-19

Phase-3 Randomized Controlled Trials on Exclusion of Participants With Kidney Disease in COVID-19

Graphical Analyses in the Regulatory Evaluation of Gene Therapy Applications.

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates gene therapies, among other products. The approval of four gene therapy products since 2017 represents a significant milestone for a new class of treatments with the potential to treat or cure diseases, particularly rare diseases, that were previously considered incurable. Several factors have contributed to the recent rapid development of gene therapies including advances in genetics to facilitate target-detection, advances in vectors, and regulatory incentives such as breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and market exclusivity. The patient population affected by a rare disease is typically small, heterogeneous and geographically dispersed. As a result, clinical trials on a rare disease have unique features in terms of study design, subject enrollment, data analyses and interpretation of study results. Given that the patient population affected is small for rare diseases, providing substantial evidence of effectiveness and evidence of safety in trials for rare disease presents challenges. In this paper, we share our experiences in the statistical review of three gene therapy products that have been approved by FDA CBER. Our motivation in writing this paper is to encourage the use of appropriate analysis strategies for other similar small trials, with a focus on data visualization strategies.

Explorative analysis of expanded access for intermediate-size and larger patient populations.

e19070 Background: Cancer is a major public health problem worldwide and is the second leading cause of death in the USA. While continuous efforts are being made by the US Food and Drug Administration to bring more new oncology products (NOP) to patients, there is a high unmet medical need for oncology patients to get access to care, and in particular access to NOP outside of clinical trials before the NOP is approved or commercialized. To improve access to NOP, several pathways are endorsed by competent authorities including: early dialogue with regulatory agencies; accelerated assessments; conditional marketing authorization; and early access provision, known as expanded access (EA) in the USA and compassionate use (CU) in the EU. Methods: A literature search and explorative analysis of available EA data from Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) relating to submission and approval of existing or investigational new drugs (IND) was performed for individual (single) patient emergency and non-emergency IND (IPIND), intermediate size IND (ISIND), and treatment IND (TIND). The findings were compared to centralized CU programs. The analysis was primarily focused on understanding the current landscape of EA for patient groups compared with individual patient categories. Results: Based on available CDER and CBER data submissions for ISIND and TIND categories were dramatically low compared with IPIND and total applications for EA: 1.25% (ISIND) and 0.13% (TIND) out of 1,598 EA applications received in 2018; and respectively 2.7% and 0.11% out of 1,741 EA applications in 2017; 2.6% and 0.24% out of 1,634 EA applications in 2016; 3.6% and 0.15% out of 1,328 EA applications in 2015; and 2.8% and 0.05% out of 1,886 EA applications in 2014. A high approval rate was reported for all three EA categories, and in particular approval of 95% (174 out 183) for ISIND and 100% (1 application) for TIND by CDER, and approval of 89% (24 out of 27) for ISIND and 80% (8 out of 10) for TIND by CBER. No applications for CU were reported by the European Medicines Agency for the same period of time, however several oncological products have been approved for CU in some European countries. Conclusions: Despite high approval rates, applications for ISIND and TIND remain low, especially in comparison to IPIND. In the absence of, or limited, alternative treatments, access provision to patient groups such as ISIND and TIND in the USA, and CU in the European Union, might represent an underutilized opportunity for oncological patients to obtain early access to care.

A Proposed Framework for Patient-Focused Policy at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Medical product sponsors are encouraged to include the patient perspective in their medical product development strategy to inform product design, augment regulatory submissions, argue for alternative clinical trial designs, or to support indications in specific patient populations. The goal is to create a patient-focused ecosystem that enables industry to integrate the patient voice throughout the medical product lifecycle. To this end, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published several guidance documents to provide industry with the expectations and opportunities for conducting patient-focused activities. From an industry perspective, the Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH) and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)/Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) patient-focused policies are complementary. The basic tenets promoted in all FDA patient-focused guidance could apply across therapeutic areas. However, there remain differences in these guidance documents across FDA centers, and there is no framework in place to provide industry with consistent recommendations. Without a coordinated patient-focused policy from the FDA, there is the potential for confusion and a lack of consistency among industry and regulatory decision-makers. The objective of this paper was to propose an alternative framework for patient-focused policy at the FDA, which recognizes the potential for different types of patient input to be used across therapeutic areas and medical product types. Further, these policies need to provide greater clarity on how patient input data is used, so that sponsors may navigate the opportunities to use patient input regardless of the FDA center under which their product is regulated. Creating consistent, coherent, and transparent FDA patient-focused policy will encourage sponsors to obtain patient input more often and with greater certainty of the value that these data may have to their medical product strategies.

The FDA's Regulatory Framework for Chimeric Antigen Receptor-TCell Therapies.

The FDA's Regulatory Framework for Chimeric Antigen Receptor-TCell Therapies.

Proceedings of the Food and Drug Administration public workshop on pathogen reduction technologies for blood safety 2018 (Commentary, p. 3026).

On November 29, 2018, experts in the field of infectious diseases, pathogen reduction technologies (PRTs) and other participants from blood centers, academia, and industry gathered at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland, for a 2‐day public workshop entitled “Pathogen Reduction Technologies for Blood Safety.” The workshop opened with welcome remarks from Dr. Nicole Verdun, Director, Office of Blood Research and Review (OBRR), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), FDA, followed by introductory remarks from Dr. Peter Marks, Director, CBER, FDA. The first day of the workshop focused on blood‐borne infectious agents and their impact on blood safety, experiences of the American Red Cross, and other blood establishments in implementing FDA‐approved pathogen inactivation (PI) technology for plasma and platelets (PLTs) in the United States and novel PRTs under consideration for whole blood (WB) and red blood cells (RBCs). The second day opened with welcome remarks from Dr. Chintamani Atreya, Associate Director for Research, OBRR, CBER, FDA. The focus was on emerging innovations relevant to PRTs and potential alternatives to PRTs. The workshop concluded with remarks on insights for future research and development in this area for blood and blood product safety from infectious agents. A brief introduction of each session by the session moderator followed by a summary of the speaker presentation as submitted by the moderator and speaker are reported here.

Clinical Pharmacology Review of Plasma-derived and Recombinant Protein Products: CBER Experience and Perspectives on Model-Informed Drug Development.

Clinical pharmacology studies are one of the major types of regulatory data submitted for review of therapeutic proteins regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). The primary objective of the current study is to provide an overview of the role of clinical pharmacology including pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and exposure-response analysis at CBER. Furthermore, we aim to provide a baseline estimate for the use of quantitative clinical pharmacology studies prior to implementation of FDA's model-informed drug development (MIDD) pilot programme. We survey original Biologics License Applications (BLAs) for plasma-derived and related recombinant therapeutic protein products approved by CBER/FDA (2008-2017). There were 37 original BLAs that met our inclusion criteria, and 34 of these products (92%) contained human PK data as part of the biological licensing. The products were broadly classified as coagulation factors (54%), IgG and related proteins (24%), and other therapeutic proteins (22%). Coagulation factor VIII and IX products constitute 32% of the BLAs and indicated for treatment of haemophilia A and B, respectively. Twelve products (35%) used model-based approaches (population PK/PD and exposure-response). Over the past 5years (2013 to 2017), there is a trend for increased application of MIDD approaches as compared to the previous cohort years (2008 to 2012). In conclusion, clinical pharmacology has played a major role in regulatory review of plasma-derived products, and we expect that the application of quantitative methods will further evolve for these products under the FDA MIDD programme.

Expanded access for cancer patients: The 5-year FDA CBER experience.

e18158 Background: Expanded access (EA) refers to the use of an investigational drug when the primary purpose is to diagnose, monitor, or treat a patient’s disease rather than to generate scientific data that is generally derived from clinical trials. FDA has long facilitated expanded access to investigational drugs for patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases and who lack therapeutic alternatives. EA requests include single-patient use protocols under existing INDs, single-patient investigational new drug applications (INDs or SPIs), and intermediate-size or treatment protocols/INDs. Methods: We searched the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) internal databases and reviewed all EA requests for cancer patients to receive investigational products regulated by CBER's Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT) from 2014-2018. These products included cellular and gene therapies, cancer vaccines and microbe-based therapies. Results: From 2014-2018, OTAT received 395 EA requests for solid tumor (ST) or hematologic malignancies (HM). One-hundred ninety-seven (197) requests were for individuals who could not be enrolled in an ongoing oncology clinical trial to receive an investigational agent (single-patient use protocols). Of 197 requests, 7 (3%) were either withdrawn or canceled by the treating physicians (sponsors). The remaining 190 (100%) were approved. One hundred seventy-three (173) EA requests, 102 for ST and 71 for HM, came from sponsors to make available to patients an investigational agent for which there were no ongoing clinical trials (SPIs). Of 173 requests, 45 (26%) were withdrawn or cancelled by the sponsors. Of the remaining 128, 127 (99%) were approved. One request was denied. Twenty-five of 395 EA requests were for intermediate-size or treatment protocols/INDs. Conclusions: From 2014-2018 there has been an increase in oncology EA requests for products regulated by CBER/OTAT, which pose unique challenges for evaluating their risks and benefits. Despite the complexities of these novel biological products, nearly all EA requests were approved.

Regenerative Medicine Therapies for Rare Diseases.

The field of regenerative medicine is growing rapidly with the introduction of new therapies that have the potential to treat and cure serious medical conditions, including rare diseases, for which there are no available treatments. In the United States, the development of novel medical products is regulated and guided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As scientific and technological advances are discovered and adopted by the medical industrial enterprise, the FDA’s implementation of policies that create a climate conducive to safe development and rapid availability of novel medical products is one of the pillars which support the Agency’s mission of protecting and promoting the public health. With advancements in cell modifications and tissue engineering, innovative creation of biomaterials, adoption of three-dimensional bioprinting, and rapid development of human genome editing technologies, the need for Agency’s work in ensuring that its science-based policies remain relevant and helpful in facilitating the availability of new treatments to the most vulnerable populations of patients becomes more pressing than ever before.In December 2016, Congress amended section 506 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act [21 U.S.C. 356] by adding a new section 506(g), which defines the categories of products considered to be regenerative medicine therapies. As further described by FDA [1], regenerative medicine therapies are considered to include cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies, as well as gene therapies, including genetically modified cells that lead to a durable modification of cells or tissues. The development and approval of regenerative medicine therapies are regulated by FDA’s Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT) in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).In this review article, we present practical considerations for investigating regenerative medicine therapies intended for the treatment of rare diseases. The material presented may be useful to researchers who are undertaking the challenging task of finding and delivering new treatments for those in need.