Food And Drug Administration Guidance Research Articles

Evaluating the accuracy of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer version 4 (ChatGPT-4) responses to United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) frequently asked questions about dental amalgam

BackgroundThe use of artificial intelligence in the field of health sciences is becoming widespread. It is known that patients benefit from artificial intelligence applications on various health issues, especially after the pandemic period. One of the most important issues in this regard is the accuracy of the information provided by artificial intelligence applications.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to the frequently asked questions about dental amalgam, as determined by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is one of these information resources, to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer version 4 (ChatGPT-4) and to compare the content of the answers given by the application with the answers of the FDA.MethodsThe questions were directed to ChatGPT-4 on May 8th and May 16th, 2023, and the responses were recorded and compared at the word and meaning levels using ChatGPT. The answers from the FDA webpage were also recorded. The responses were compared for content similarity in “Main Idea”, “Quality Analysis”, “Common Ideas”, and “Inconsistent Ideas” between ChatGPT-4’s responses and FDA’s responses.ResultsChatGPT-4 provided similar responses at one-week intervals. In comparison with FDA guidance, it provided answers with similar information content to frequently asked questions. However, although there were some similarities in the general aspects of the recommendation regarding amalgam removal in the question, the two texts are not the same, and they offered different perspectives on the replacement of fillings.ConclusionsThe findings of this study indicate that ChatGPT-4, an artificial intelligence based application, encompasses current and accurate information regarding dental amalgam and its removal, providing it to individuals seeking access to such information. Nevertheless, we believe that numerous studies are required to assess the validity and reliability of ChatGPT-4 across diverse subjects.

Design and sample size determination for multiple-dose randomized phase II trials for dose optimization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched Project Optimus to shift dose selection from the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to the dose that produces the optimal risk-benefit tradeoff. One approach highlighted in the FDA's guidance involves conducting a randomized phase II trial following the completion of a phase I trial, where multiple doses (typically including the MTD and one or two doses lower than the MTD) are compared to identify the optimal dose that maximizes the benefit-risk tradeoff. This article focuses on the design of such a multiple-dose randomized trial, specifically the determination of the sample size. We generalized the standard definitions of type I error and power to accommodate the unique characteristics of dose optimization and derived a decision rule along with an algorithm to determine the optimal sample size. The resulting design is referred to as MERIT (Multiple-dosE RandomIzed Trial design for dose optimization based on toxicity and efficacy). Simulation studies demonstrate that MERIT has desirable operating characteristics, and a sample size between 20 and 40 per dosage arm often offers reasonable power and type I errors to ensure patient safety and benefit. To facilitate the implementation of the MERIT design, we provide software, available at https://www.trialdesign.org.

Patient experiences in ulcerative colitis: conceptual model and review of patient-reported outcome measures

PurposeTo identify symptoms and their impacts on daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) experienced by adult patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for UC clinical studies.MethodsA conceptual model of symptoms and impacts of UC were developed from a literature review. PRO measures were identified from the literature, clinical trials databases, health technology assessment submissions, and regulatory label claims, and were selected for conceptual analysis based on disease specificity and use across information sources. PRO measures covering the most concepts when mapped against the conceptual model were assessed for gaps in psychometric properties using Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance and consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) criteria.ResultsThe conceptual model grouped the 52 symptom concepts and 72 proximal and distal impacts into eight, two, and five dimensions, respectively. Of 65 PRO measures identified, eight underwent conceptual analysis. Measures covering the most concepts and assessed for psychometric properties were the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire for UC, UC-PRO symptoms modules, UC-PRO impact modules, and Crohn’s and UC Questionnaire; all had good or excellent support for content validity. The UC-PRO Signs and Symptoms fully met FDA guidance and COSMIN criteria for content validity and most psychometric properties.ConclusionExisting PRO measures assess concepts relevant to patients with UC, but all PRO measures reviewed require further psychometric evaluation to demonstrate they are fit for purpose.

Rapid and simple quantification of belimumab in human plasma using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

ObjectiveBelimumab is a monoclonal antibody against the B-lymphocyte stimulating factor and is approved for the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) not responding adequately to existing therapies. In this study, we established and validated an assay for quantifying belimumab in human plasma. MethodsFrom the peptides generated by trypsin digestion of belimumab, in silico analysis was used to search for unique peptides to determine the surrogate peptides. Samples were trypsin digested, pretreated with solid phase extraction, and analyzed by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) to quantify the surrogate peptide in the samples. The assay was validated according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bioanalytical method validation guidance. We used the established assay to quantify plasma belimumab concentrations in two SLE patients treated with belimumab. ResultsAmong the unique peptides identified by the in silico analysis, the peptide with the best peak shape when measured by UHPLC-MS/MS was selected as the surrogate peptide. The validation results of this assay met the acceptable criteria recommended by the FDA guidance. The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) for belimumab was 2 µg/mL. Recovery rates and matrix effects when corrected for internal standards were 91.5–114.3 % and 96.9–108.4 %, respectively. Plasma concentrations of belimumab were measured in 12 samples from two belimumab-treated SLE patients. All concentrations were within the calibration range. ConclusionsWe have established and validated a method for measuring plasma belimumab concentrations using UHPLC/MS-MS. By measuring plasma belimumab concentrations in more patients, this method is expected to contribute to appropriate use of belimumab.

Implementation status of pharmacological studies in the development of orphan drugs

BackgroundThe nonclinical as well as clinical development of orphan drugs is difficult, owing to unknown pathophysiology and the absence of animal models. Both, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance and European Medicines Agency (EMA) Guidelines, for orphan drug development describe non-clinical studies, but lack specific information, such as animal species and study design. Against this background, this study aimed to elucidate efficient methods for evaluating nonclinical efficacy based on a review report of orphan drugs approved in Japan.ResultsA total of 184 orphan drugs, including 84 anticancer and 100 non-anticancer drugs, approved in Japan from January 2010 to December 2019 were investigated. Some anticancer drugs progressed to clinical development without distinct efficacy data in nonclinical studies. Patient-derived cells have been used for some drugs due to a lack of established cell lines. Cells used for non-clinical studies were devised for drugs indicated for cancers resistant to prior therapies, tumours with specific amino acid mutations in the target molecules, and solid tumours with specific biomarkers. For some non-anticancer drugs, similar disease animal models and normal animals were used for evaluation, since animal models did not exist. Biomarkers have been used specifically for evaluation in normal animals and as endpoints in some clinical trials.ConclusionsIt was possible to evaluate drug efficacy by flexibly designing nonclinical studies according to disease characteristics for potentials orphan drugs. These approaches, which are not described in detail in the EMA Guideline or FDA Guidance, may thus lead to approval.

Clinical Trial Design in Ulcerative Colitis: Interpreting Evolving Endpoints Based on Post Hoc Analyses of the Vedolizumab Phase 3 Trials GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1.

The 12-point total Mayo score including a Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) of disease activity has been used to assess outcomes in clinical trials for ulcerative colitis (UC). In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance advising the removal of the PGA in future trials. We examined how endpoints in UC trials have evolved and conducted a post hoc analysis of the GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1 trials to understand how the use of a 9-point modified Mayo score, excluding PGA, compares with the total Mayo score. Endpoint definitions of clinical remission in phase 3 trials were extracted from published literature and ClinicalTrials.gov. The difference (%Δ) between the proportions of patients in GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1 achieving clinical remission with vedolizumab versus placebo at week 52 was measured according to 4 endpoint definitions. Trials completed up to the end of 2019 used the total Mayo score to assess clinical remission. Most trials that were completed or estimated to be completed by June 2020 or later used modified Mayo scores. Post hoc analysis revealed decreasing endpoint stringency was associated with increasing %Δ values. The modified Mayo score definition most like the definition recommended by the FDA produced %Δ values like those reported using the total Mayo score in GEMINI 1 and VISIBLE 1. Endpoint definitions for UC clinical trials have evolved following FDA guidance. The efficacy of vedolizumab, measured using modified Mayo scoring, was comparable to values reported using the total Mayo score.

Use of Single-Arm Trials in FDA Approvals of Treatments in Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Lymphoma

Background: Single-arm trials are commonly used to evaluate therapies targeting life-threatening or rare diseases (e.g., late-stage cancers that are relapsed or refractory to prior interventions). A number of oncology products supported by single-arm trials have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The draft guidance issued by the FDA on 24 March 2023 recommended key considerations for trial design and analysis when a single-arm trial is considered appropriate to support accelerated approval. The objective of this study was to assess how often anticancer drugs approved by the FDA were based on single-arm trials in a typical relapsed or refractory indication and to evaluate the quality of trial design and data leading to approvals. Methods: We reviewed past approvals between 2006 and 2023 listed on the FDA website, focusing on the indication of relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma. Of 11 approvals identified, eight were supported by single-arm trials and three were based on randomized controlled trials. Approvals based on single-arm trials were further investigated, and each trial was analyzed for the following criteria as recommended by the draft FDA guidance: 1) if the endpoint was based on response rate assessed using appropriate criteria; 2) if the sample size was sufficient to provide robust estimates of efficacy and safety profile; and 3) if the magnitude and duration of response were adequate. Results: Among the eight approvals based on single-arm trials, one was approved in 2017, one in 2018, and two each in 2020, 2021, and 2023. Three were chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies and were granted regular approval; the other five were non-CAR-T therapies which were granted accelerated approval. The primary endpoints adopted by all the trials were overall response rates (defined as complete and partial responders) and duration of response determined by an independent review committee. The magnitude of overall response rates reported by most trials ranged from 48% to 72% (with more than 50% of them with a complete response); one trial reported an overall response rate of 29% with complete response rate of 13%. A minimal median follow-up of six months after response was achieved in all trials. The estimated median duration of response varied from 10.3 to 21.7 months, with three trials reporting medians not reached. Based on the trial description, the analysis population was pre-specified for the evaluation of efficacy, ranging from 68 to 192 participants. Conclusion: Submissions based on single-arm trials for oncology therapies in the relapsed and refractory setting tended to be well accepted by FDA for accelerated and regular approval when the key criteria of trial design and data quality were adequately met.

Quality By Design Pilot Analysis of FDA Regulatory Guidance Web Data Usability for Innovators in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Overcoming Challenges to CAR-T Development

Background: Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) remains a challenging hematological disease due to varied presentation and etiologies. Historically, cell/gene therapy guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have partial utility in CAR-T development owing to the unique nature of cell-based gene modification but overlap with some key regulatory tenants of broader gene therapy. Inability to identify and apply appropriate guidance poses a challenge for next generation CAR-T immuno- and targeted therapy developers and start-ups, who are situated in a uniquely dynamic regulatory compliance landscape. Methods: A pragmatic Quality by Design (QbD) approach was taken to analyzing the usability and utility of publicly available web-based regulatory guidance via ethnographic observation of an asynchronous industry focus groups ( N = 14) of quality and translational research professionals seeking NHL regulatory guidance and/or regulatory approval information relevant to development of new CAR-T therapeutics (Fig. 1, top) over the course of approximately 10 minutes per observation. Further, a database of innovator and generic approval timelines was created for the 93 currently FDA-approved therapies based on ease of finding corresponding information. Results: Within the focus group, 7% (1/14) rated their team's confidence high in differences between recent specific FDA guidance for early phase CAR-T (Mar 2022) and prior gene and cell therapy guidance agnostic to gene therapy vs CAR-T and 79% (11/14) felt additional CAR-T manufacturing change guidance was needed. QbD stepwise analysis showed experienced users ( N = 9) clicked 10±3 pages before arriving at a desired FDA web-based guidance from the relevant framework (Fig. 1, bottom); remaining inexperienced users were unable to locate the guidance within the test period, primarily due to discrepancies in identifying appropriate classification and center (i.e. FDA CDER/CDER/CDRH) to locate the target guidance. Users had more difficulty locating information on biosimilars and generic drugs, owing in part to confusion between generic terminology on drug vs biologics/vaccines web portals. Conclusions: While current guidance has improved clarity of translational development, additional clarity and ease of access is needed for guidance on manufacturing change and implementation at non-traditional GMP sites for CAR-T to further streamline and scale these therapies. Further, generics developers, in particularly in biosimilars, may face larger hurdles in locating and applying appropriate regulatory guidance using current web-based resources. The research provides a foundation for developing merging web-based aggregation systems to improve the accessibility of regulatory content, utility, and usability of publicly available regulatory information. Such systems have the potential to improve time-to-market for innovator therapeutics and cost-effective biosimilars in NHL. This research provides insight into future web systems and natural language processing (NLP) design that could utilize merging automation to make regulatory information more accessible within key areas.

A Pragmatic Approach to Navigating FDA Guidance for Therapeutic Product Development in Malignant Hematological Disease

Background: Owing to the unique therapeutic characteristics and diverse etiology of underlying disease, navigating available regulatory guidance can be a challenge for newcomers to therapeutic research and development (R&D). Further, classes of drugs and biologic products are regulated separately by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) centers CBER and CDER, respectively. Methods: We provide background on the FDA guidance structure herein and further examine publicly registered clincialtrials.gov data to provide an overview of development status by phases and novel modality (i.e., CAR-T) in context of the regulatory landscape. Results: Therapeutic products developed for malignant hematological disease can be regulated by either CDER or CBER depending on the type of drugs, ranging from small molecules to macromolecules, including cellular and gene therapies. In 2019, CDER of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP) has been reorganized and renamed the Office of Oncologic Diseases (OOD). The new OOD structure consists of six divisions including Division of Hematologic Malignancies 1 (DHM1) and Division of Hematologic Malignancies 2 (DHM2) for the review of hematologic malignancies. In 2022, CBER of Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT) was transformed into the Office of Therapeutic Products (OTP) to address the exponential growth in cell and gene therapies. PDUFA VII expanded the INTERACT meeting program to include both centers, a major change that may drive early phase development collaboration. A review on the current state of hematologic malignancies clinical trials in USA shows that, of 301 hematologic malignancies related trails in USA registered to ClinicalTrials.gov (Fig. 1), 4 are in early phase 1(exploratory phase), 126 in phase 1, 120 in phase 2, 18 in phase 3, and 1 in phase 4. Most of the trials are still in early phases 1 or 2. Among the 301 registered clinical trials, 21 of clinical trials (Fig. 2) are CAR-T related, and 10 of the trials are gene modified cell products related. Conclusions: Compared with traditional treatment on malignant hematological disease, immunotherapy is the upcoming trend in cancer treatment. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) therapy is at the forefront of cellular/adoptive immunotherapy for cancer treatment due to its sustained remission and better quality of life. Much research and clinical trials have been undertaken in recent years which led to several successful outcomes in CAR therapy. Despite tremendous progress, CAR-T are still faced with many challenges, including evolving regulatory framework along the road. We summarize the regulatory landscape to assist therapy developers to align with FDA expectations.

Analyzing FDA's approaches to using electronic health record and medical claims data to support regulatory decision making

In 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued draft guidance on the use of electronic health records and medical claims data for regulatory decisions. The draft guidance provides recommendations for sponsors regarding the use of real-world data in conducting studies. It also addresses the challenges and limitations associated with the use of these data and provides recommendations to overcome them. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of key aspects of the FDA's guidance on the use of electronic health record data in regulatory decision making.

SURF: A Screening tool (for sponsors) to evaluate whether Using real-world data to support an effectiveness claim in an FDA application has Regulatory Feasibility.

Based on recent guidance and publicly available approvals, FDA has demonstrated its openness to considering evidence of effectiveness from real-world data (RWD) and non-randomized studies (or "real-world evidence (RWE)") in its decision-making. Through analysis of FDA approvals, several authors have identified methodologic issues commonly discussed by FDA reviewers. However, in our analysis of FDA guidance and use cases, acceptability of RWE also critically depends on whether the characteristics of the clinical development program align with circumstances in which FDA may have flexibility in considering evidence from real-world (RW) study designs relative to more robust designs. Successful use of RWD requires advance planning to allocate the necessary resources and time to undertake principled epidemiology approaches to study design, data selection, and implementation of analyses as well as address regulatory feedback. Thus, sponsors benefit from early identification of programs in which successful RWD use is more likely, to ensure efficient use of resources required for the next steps of scientific feasibility assessment. We developed SURF, a screening tool intended to help a sponsor decide whether to prioritize resources for further exploring the feasibility of using an RWD approach to meet FDA's effectiveness evidentiary standards for a particular clinical development program. Here we provide an analysis of FDA guidance, highlighting the circumstances in which RWD approaches may be most acceptable, and demonstrate the use of this screening tool, including the rationale for its construction, types of evidence needed, and application to publicly available approvals as support of concept.

Poster 378: The Availability and Price of Orthobiologic Injections in the Chicagoland Area: A Market Assessment Study

Objectives: Orthobiologic therapies have recently gained popularity in orthopaedic surgery as potential treatment options that can be used to manage the symptoms of musculoskeletal conditions. However, the market for these products remains unregulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), giving rise to a wide range of available yet untested products. There are growing concerns related to patient safety and product efficacy, but also in regard to the amount of money being charged by providers for these treatments Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the current market for orthobiologic injections for knee osteoarthritis in a large, metropolitan city and determine 1) the willingness of providers to disclose the cost of an injection prior to an appointment; 2) the cost of injections if disclosed; 3) the cellular source of injections being advertised as “stem cell” products; and 4) whether there are differences in the market for orthobiologics within and outside of orthopaedic sports medicine practices. Methods: Orthopaedic sports medicine providers in the Chicagoland area were identified through the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) and Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) registries of sports medicine physicians seeing patients in at least one location within the Chicagoland area. Non orthopaedic clinics (including chiropractors, pain management physicians, and self-advertised “regenerative medicine” clinics) offering orthobiologic injections were compiled using Yelp! and Google search for listings and reviews containing the following key words: “PRP” or “platelet-rich plasma” or “platelet rich plasma,” “SCT” or “stem cells” or “amniotic tissue injections” or “adipose stem cell injections,” and “BMAC” or “bone marrow aspirate concentrate.” A single author [BLINDED] contacted every clinic via a common telephone script, which was modified from an existing study. Data was collected for each site on the types of injections offered, whether price was disclosed over the phone, the price of injections offered, and the source of alternative “stem cell” injections if they were provided. Prices were explicitly specified as being for one injection of one joint. Results: A total of 25 orthopaedic sports medicine practices (comprising 80 AOSSM/AANA surgeons) and 40 non orthopaedic clinics offered at least one of either PRP, “stem cell,” and/or BMAC injections over the phone (Table 1). There was no difference in the likelihood of providing PRP injections (p = 0.698) or BMAC injections (p = 0.340). However, non orthopaedic clinics were significantly more likely to offer “stem cell” injections (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the willingness to disclose the price of PRP without an appointment (p = 0.269), willingness to disclose the price of “stem cell” injections (p = 0.302), willingness to disclose price of BMAC (p = 0.528), or willingness to disclose the source of what each clinic advertised as “stem cell” injections (p = 0.302). While the average price of a BMAC injection was not different between provider types (p = 0.238), the average price of a single PRP injection was significantly higher (p = 0.011) and significantly more variable (F statistic = 0.139; p < 0.001) at non orthopaedic clinics (Figure 1). Similarly, the average price of a single “stem cell” injection was significantly higher (p < 0.001) and significantly more variable (F statistic = 0.080; p = 0.025) at non orthopaedic clinics. Most commonly, alternative “stem cell” products included amniotic-based injections, which are currently discouraged for distribution or use based upon the most recent FDA guidance document. Conclusions: When compared to orthopaedic sports medicine providers, non orthopaedic clinics providing orthobiologic treatments in the Chicagoland area are more likely to offer alternative “stem cell” injections and charge a significantly greater and more variable amount per PRP and “stem cell” injection. Unfortunately, there was liberal use of the terms “regenerative medicine” and “stem cell” therapies in the face of increased scrutiny related to the FDA’s current position on cell-based therapies. Future studies should examine these trends on a national scale to assess compliance with FDA regulations on orthobiologics, as well as establish standards of price for these treatments. [Table: see text]

Optical performance measurement methods for whole slide imaging devices employing a Bayer color imager

Whole slide imaging (WSI) is a widely used digitalization technique to record microscopic images of a whole-stained tissue sample on a glass slide. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides guidelines for methods used to evaluate various WSI devices. However, the designated evaluation methods for guidance are not always optimal. To this end, novel inspection methods are proposed, which fulfill the requirements of FDA guidance, and then deployed to evaluate the measurement accuracy of our laboratory-built WSI device that employs a 2D Bayer imager. The proposed methods demonstrably evaluate distortion, chromatic aberration, and field curvature with the required precision.

Early evaluation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on antimicrobial use in food animals on antimicrobial resistance trends reported by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (2012–2019)

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the biggest challenges to global public health. To address this issue in the US, governmental agencies have implemented system-wide guidance frameworks and recommendations aimed at reducing antimicrobial use. In particular, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibited the extra-label use of cephalosporins in food animals in 2012 and issued the guidance for industry (GFI) #213 about establishing a framework to phase out the use of all medically relevant drugs for growth promotion in 2012. Also in 2015, the FDA implemented veterinary feed directive (VFD) drug regulations (GFI# 120) to control the use of certain antimicrobials. To assess the potential early effects of these FDA actions and other concurrent antimicrobial stewardship actions on AMR in the food chain, we compared the patterns of the phenotypic (minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and percentage of resistance) and genotypic resistances for selected antimicrobials before and after 2016 across different enteric pathogen species, as reported by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS). Most of the antimicrobials analyzed at the phenotypic level followed a downward trend in MIC after implementing the guidance. Although, most of those changes were less than one 1-fold dilution. On the other hand, compared to MIC results, the results based on phenotypic resistance prevalence evidenced higher differences in both directions between the pre- and post-guidance implementation period. Also, we did not find relevant differences in the presence of AMR genes between pre- and post-VFD drug regulations. We concluded that the FDA guidance on antimicrobial use has not led to substantial reductions in antimicrobial drug resistance yet.

Bridging the gap: FDA diversity-related postmarketing requirements.

e13608 Background: Historically, pre-market clinical trials have lacked enrollment of racial and ethnic minority patients that represent the population intended to be treated with the approved drug in the US. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has several programs and initiatives designed to enhance diversity in oncology clinical trials, such as the Oncology Center of Excellence’s (OCE) Project Equity, FDA Guidance documents, and submission of Diversity Plans from industry. Under the code of federal regulations and/or statute, the FDA can issue post-marketing requirements (PMR) to fulfill accelerated approval requirements for confirmatory studies; for assessing safety signals; or for conducting dedicated studies in pediatric patients. FDA may also issue post-marketing commitments (PMC) to generate additional clinical evidence. PMRs and PMCs have been used to obtain additional information on under-represented populations. The objectives of this analysis were to identify oncology PMRs/PMCs issued with a specific focus on racial and ethnic minority populations and examine the trend over the 10-year period. Methods: We searched FDA’s publicly available database of PMR/PMCs, inclusive of drugs and biologic products, and internal agency databases for PMR/PMCs issued between 2012-2022. The PMR/PMC search was further narrowed down by keywords to capture all PMRs/PMCs relevant to races and ethnicity. The PMRs/PMCs were then manually reviewed for duplication and applicability to malignant indications. Results: In a 10-year period, 34 PMR/PMCs focused on race and ethnicity were issued across 461 oncology approvals (initial marketing approvals = 164, new indications = 297). Twenty-two were issued with the initial marketing approval and 12 with supplemental efficacy approvals. All PMR/PMCs were issued in the last 3 years (2019-2022). PMCs accounted for 55.9% (n = 19) and PMRs 44.1% (n = 15). Nine of the 15 PMRs requesting additional information on underrepresented populations were included with the accelerated approval PMRs. Six of the 34 PMR/PMCs were issued to obtain additional PK or dosing information in the underrepresented population. The most common PMR/PMC indications issued were lymphoma (n = 13, 38.2%), multiple myeloma (n = 8, 23.5%), and non-small cell lung cancer (n = 4, 11.8%). Although PMR/PMCs that mentioned a specific race were limited, African American/Black (n = 8) and Asian (n = 1) were occasionally identified. All studies identified in this analysis are ongoing except for one, for which the product was withdrawn. Conclusions: Our analysis highlights the trend and increased emphasis on race and ethnicity in post approval oncology studies. While progress has been made to promote studies that are representative of the US population through these PMRs/PMCs, diversity plans, and FDA guidance over the course of the past 10 years, more efforts are needed to better enhance diversity in clinical trials moving forward.

Enrollment representation of age, race, and ethnicity in ovarian cancer registrational clinical trials (2010-2020): An evaluation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

e18527 Background: Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer mortality among U.S. women. Because clinical trials have historically not been demographically representative of real-world patients, an understanding of the extent of disparities is an important step in addressing them. We aimed to evaluate the representation of older adults and racial and ethnic minorities in trials for ovarian cancer drugs. Methods: We conducted a pooled analysis of all trials that were submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020 in support of marketing applications for epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal indications. Demographic data (age, race, and ethnicity) for adult participants were analyzed alongside incident ovarian cancer case data (diagnosis between 2010 and 2019) from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Enrollment to Incidence Ratio (EIR) is reported and defined as the percentage of participants divided by percentage of U.S. incident ovarian cancer cases. An EIR between 0.80-1.20 indicates adequate representation; <0.80 or >1.20 indicates underrepresentation or overrepresentation, respectively. Participants with race or ethnicity categories reported as unknown or missing, or insufficient for calculation were not included in this analysis. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the exclusion of trials enrolling only BRCA+ participants. Results: The analysis included 8,211 participants enrolled across 15 clinical trials. Age was available for all participants; race/ethnicity was not reported for 16.3% of participants. With increasing age, EIR decreased (Table). Non-Hispanic (NH) White participants had the highest EIR of all racial/ethnic groups, while NH Black and Hispanic participants had the lowest EIR. Results were similar when excluding trials enrolling only BRCA+ participants. Conclusions: Adults aged ≥75, NH Black, and Hispanic participants were underrepresented in registrational trials for new ovarian cancer therapies. To enhance understanding of the correlation between age, race, and ethnicity, further analyses are necessary. Prospective measures are essential, as discussed in recent FDA guidances, to enroll an adequately representative population in ovarian cancer clinical trials.[Table: see text]

Assessment, Complications, and Surveillance of Breast Implants: Making Sense of 2022 FDA Breast Implant Guidance.

As more information about the potential risks and complications related to breast implants has become available, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responded by implementing changes to improve patient education, recalling certain devices and updating the recommendations for screening for silicone implant rupture. In addition to staying up-to-date with FDA actions and guidance, radiologists need to maintain awareness about the types of implants they may see, breast reconstruction techniques including the use of acellular dermal matrix, and the multimodality imaging of implants and their complications. Radiologists should also be familiar with some key differences between the updated FDA guidelines for implant screening and the imaging recommendations from the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. The addition of US as an acceptable screening exam for silicone implant rupture by the FDA is one of the most notable changes that has potentially significant implications.

Trends in COA Use and Regulatory Acceptance for Epileptic Encephalopathy and Developmental Epileptic Encephalopathy Indications (P13-1.006)

<h3>Objective:</h3> To investigate the landscape of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) used in epileptic encephalopathies (EEs) and developmental epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs). <h3>Background:</h3> EEs and DEEs are rare conditions characterized by difficult-to-treat seizures and intellectual or developmental disability. The heterogeneity of these conditions creates unique challenges for outcome measurement, particularly in clinical trials. To assess trends in the COA landscape, a targeted literature review was conducted to identify COAs used in EE and DEE clinical trials. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> A search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov to identify interventional studies in EEs and DEEs. Findings were supplemented by searches in PubMed (titles/abstracts only), PROLABELS, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) COA guidance materials, pairing EE/DEE and COA search terms when applicable. No limits on year of publication were applied. All results were reviewed, and relevant data were extracted and analyzed to identify trends in COA use. <h3>Results:</h3> The search identified 153 trials (ClinicalTrials.gov), 405 articles (PubMed), and 92 FDA drug labels (PROLABELS). Following screening, 105 trials, 26 article abstracts, and 19 labels met the criteria for data extraction. Excluding safety measures, 113 COAs were identified. Consistent with FDA guidance, seizure assessments and diaries were utilized most frequently, followed by clinician- or caregiver-rated global impression measures. Observer-reported outcomes and clinician-reported outcomes were more common than patient-reported outcomes. Approximately 25% of COAs were disease-specific. Additionally, common domains in COAs reviewed included cognition (n=22), motor functioning (n=14), multi-domains or quality of life (n=14), or communication (n=6). Several COAs utilized a global impression approach to assess within-patient change in domains, such as seizure severity or non-seizure concepts. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Importantly, disease-specific measures, including global impression items intended to capture change in multiple domains, were identified. These findings may suggest that a disease-specific global impression approach is becoming increasingly common in these heterogeneous conditions to accompany seizure assessments and diaries. <b>Disclosure:</b> Ms. Graham has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of IQVIA. Dr. Chladek has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of IQVIA. Dr. Chladek has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Clinical Outcomes Solutions. Ms. Nacson has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Clinical Outcomes Solutions. Ms. Nacson has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of IQVIA. Dr. Batchelder has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of IQVIA. Dr. Gleeson has nothing to disclose. Ms. Buenfil has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of IQVIA. Ms. Kim has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of IQVIA. Dr. Meyers has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of IQVIA. Dr. Williams has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of IQVIA.

Expanded access protocol (EAP) program for access to investigational products for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Expanded access protocols (EAPs) are a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated pathway for granting access to investigational products (IPs) to individuals with serious diseases who are ineligible for clinical trials. There is limited information about the use of EAPs in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); the aim of this report is to share the design, operational features, and costs of an EAP program for ALS. The program was launched in 2018 at a single center. In alignment with FDA guidance, protocols were designed as individual (single participant) or intermediate size. Inclusion criteria were broad (e.g., no restrictions due to long disease duration or low vital capacity). Safety information was collected in all EAPs. Selected biomarkers were collected in nine of the EAPs. From July 2018 through February 2022, 17 EAPs were submitted for FDA and institutional review board (IRB) approval. The mean time from submission to approval from the FDA and IRB were 24 days and 37 days, respectively. A total of 164 participants were enrolled and, of these, 77 participants were still receiving IP as of February 2022. The mean duration of participation in an EAP was 12.6 mo. No drug-related serious adverse events were reported from any of the EAPs. Average site cost was $613.47 per participant per month, not including IP costs. EAPs provide a framework through which access to IP can be safely provided to people with ALS who do not qualify for clinical trials. Site resources are needed to launch and maintain these programs.

JYNNEOS Vaccination Coverage Among Persons at Risk for Mpox — United States, May 22, 2022–January 31, 2023

From May 2022 through the end of January 2023, approximately 30,000 cases of monkeypox (mpox) have been reported in the United States and >86,000 cases reported internationally.* JYNNEOS (Modified Vaccinia Ankara vaccine, Bavarian Nordic) is recommended for subcutaneous administration to persons at increased risk for mpox (1,2) and has been demonstrated to provide protection against infection (3-5). To increase the total number of vaccine doses available, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on August 9, 2022, recommending administration of the vaccine intradermally (0.1 mL per dose) for persons aged ≥18 years who are recommended to receive it (6); intradermal administration can generate an equivalent immune response to that achieved through subcutaneous injection using approximately one fifth the subcutaneous dose (7). CDC analyzed JYNNEOS vaccine administration data submitted to CDC from jurisdictional immunization information systems (IIS)† to assess the impact of the EUA and to estimate vaccination coverage among the population at risk for mpox. During May 22, 2022-January 31, 2023, a total of 1,189,651 JYNNEOS doses (734,510 first doses and 452,884 second doses)§ were administered. Through the week of August 20, 2022, the predominant route of administration was subcutaneous, after which intradermal administration became predominant, in accordance with FDA guidance. As of January 31, 2023, 1-dose and 2-dose (full vaccination) coverage among persons at risk for mpox is estimated to have reached 36.7% and 22.7%, respectively. Despite a steady decline in mpox cases from a 7-day daily average of more than 400 cases on August 1, 2022, to five cases on January 31, 2023, vaccination for persons at risk for mpox continues to be recommended (1). Targeted outreach and continued access to and availability of mpox vaccines to persons at risk are important to help prevent and minimize the impact of a resurgence of mpox.