Moving Toward a Question‐Centric Approach for Regulatory Decision Making in the Context of Drug Assessment

Author:

Musuamba Flora T.12ORCID,Cheung S.Y. Amy3ORCID,Colin Pieter4ORCID,Davies Elin H.5,Barret Jeffrey S.6ORCID,Pappalardo Francesco789ORCID,Chappell Michael10,Dogne Jean‐Michel1,Ceci Adriana11,Della Pasqua Oscar12ORCID,Rusten Ine S.13

Affiliation:

1. University of Namur, Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences Namur Belgium

2. Belgian Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products Brussels Belgium

3. Certara London UK

4. Department of Anesthesiology University Medical Center Groningen University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands

5. Aparito Wrexham UK

6. Aridhia Bioinformatics Glasgow UK

7. Department of Drug and Health Science University of Catania Catania Italy

8. Menzies Health Institute Griffith University Queensland Australia

9. Computer Science Department Metropolitan College Boston University Boston Massachusetts USA

10. School of Engineering University of Warwick Coventry UK

11. Fondazione per la Ricerca Farmacologica Gianni Benzi Valenzano Italy

12. University College London London UK

13. Systems Resource Lab Kragero Norway

Abstract

The most intuitive question for market access for medicinal products is the benefit/risk (B/R) balance. The B/R assessment can conceptually be divided into subquestions related to establishing efficacy and safety. There are additional layers to the B/R ratio for medical products, including questions related to dose selection, clinical and nonclinical pharmacology, and drug quality. Explicitly stating the actual questions and how they contribute to the overall B/R provides a structure that fosters better informed cross‐domain discussions. There is currently no systematic approach in the regulatory setting to assess and establish the acceptability of alternative methods and data sources. In most cases, the medicinal product sponsors tend to prioritize traditional data types and methods, which are well accepted by regulators for inclusion in regulatory submissions. This, in addition to the absence of rigor in the use and validation of new data types and methods, and the limited training of assessors in related fields can lead to increased regulatory skepticism toward new data types and methods. A data‐knowledge backbone is needed to mitigate the uncertainty in efficacy and safety characterization. This white paper discusses the value of explicitly redefining and restructuring the regulatory scientific decision making around the scientific question to be addressed. The ecosystem proposed is based on three pillars: (i) a repository connecting questions, data, and methods; (ii) the development and validation of high‐quality standards for data and methods; and (iii) credibility assessment. The ecosystem is applied to four use cases for illustration. The need for training and regulatory guidance is also discussed.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Pharmacology (medical),Pharmacology

Reference27 articles.

1. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs

2. How Much Does It Cost to Research and Develop a New Drug? A Systematic Review and Assessment

3. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters

4. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).Assessing Credibility of Computational Modeling through Verification and Validation: Application to Medical Devices(2018).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3