Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science 

About: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science is an academic journal published by SAGE Publishing. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Medicine & Clinical trial. It has an ISSN identifier of 2168-4790. Over the lifetime, 1270 publications have been published receiving 7532 citations. The journal is also known as: Official journal of DIA & Therapeutic innovation and regulatory science.

Partnering With Patients in the Development and Lifecycle of Medicines: A Call for Action

Abstract: The purpose of medicines is to improve patients' lives. Stakeholders involved in the development and lifecycle management of medicines agree that more effective patient involvement is needed to ensure that patient needs and priorities are identified and met. Despite the increasing number and scope of patient involvement initiatives, there is no accepted master framework for systematic patient involvement in industry-led medicines research and development, regulatory review, or market access decisions. Patient engagement is very productive in some indications, but inconsistent and fragmentary on a broader level. This often results in inefficient drug development, increasing evidence requirements, lack of patient-centered outcomes that address unmet medical needs and facilitate adherence, and consequently, lack of required therapeutic options and high costs to society and involved parties. Improved patient involvement can drive the development of innovative medicines that deliver more relevant and impactful patient outcomes and make medicine development faster, more efficient, and more productive. It can lead to better prioritization of early research; improved resource allocation; improved trial protocol designs that better reflect patient needs; and, by addressing potential barriers to patient participation, enhanced recruitment and retention. It may also improve trial conduct and lead to more focused, economically viable clinical trials. At launch and beyond, systematic patient involvement can also improve the ongoing benefit-risk assessment, ensure that public funds prioritize medicines of value to patients, and further the development of the medicine. Progress toward a universal framework for patient involvement requires a joint, precompetitive, and international approach by all stakeholders, working in true partnership to consolidate outputs from existing initiatives, identify gaps, and develop a comprehensive framework. It is essential that all stakeholders participate to drive adoption and implementation of the framework and to ensure that patients and their needs are embedded at the heart of medicines development and lifecycle management.

ClinicalTrials.gov: An Underutilized Source of Research Data About the Design and Conduct of Commercial Clinical Trials.

Abstract: Since 2007, the US federal government has required that organizations sponsoring clinical trials with a least one site in the United States submit information on these clinical trials to an existin...

Assessing the Financial Value of Patient Engagement: A Quantitative Approach from CTTI's Patient Groups and Clinical Trials Project.

Abstract: While patient groups, regulators, and sponsors are increasingly considering engaging with patients in the design and conduct of clinical development programs, sponsors are often reluctant to go beyond pilot programs because of uncertainty in the return on investment. We developed an approach to estimate the financial value of patient engagement. Expected net present value (ENPV) is a common technique that integrates the key business drivers of cost, time, revenue, and risk into a summary metric for project strategy and portfolio decisions. We assessed the impact of patient engagement on ENPV for a typical oncology development program entering phase 2 or phase 3. For a pre-phase 2 project, the cumulative impact of a patient engagement activity that avoids one protocol amendment and improves enrollment, adherence, and retention is an increase in net present value (NPV) of $62MM ($65MM for pre-phase 3) and an increase in ENPV of $35MM ($75MM for pre-phase 3). Compared with an investment of $100,000 in patient engagement, the NPV and ENPV increases can exceed 500-fold the investment. This ENPV increase is the equivalent of accelerating a pre-phase 2 product launch by 2½ years (1½ years for pre-phase 3). Risk-adjusted financial models can assess the impact of patient engagement. A combination of empirical data and subjective parameter estimates shows that engagement activities with the potential to avoid protocol amendments and/or improve enrollment, adherence, and retention may add considerable financial value. This approach can help sponsors assess patient engagement investment decisions.

Minimizing Patient Burden Through the Use of Historical Subject-Level Data in Innovative Confirmatory Clinical Trials: Review of Methods and Opportunities

Abstract: The goal of clinical trial research is to deliver safe and efficacious new treatments to patients in need in a timely and cost-effective manner. There is precedent in using historical control data to reduce the number of concurrent control subjects required in developing medicines for rare diseases and other areas of unmet need. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review for a regulatory and industry audience of the current state of relevant statistical methods, and of the uptake of these approaches and the opportunities for broader use of historical data in confirmatory clinical trials. General principles to consider when incorporating historical control data in a new trial are presented. Bayesian and frequentist approaches are outlined including how the operating characteristics for such a trial can be obtained. Finally, examples of approved new treatments that incorporated historical controls in their confirmatory trials are presented.

Interpreting Change in Scores on Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments:

Abstract: Interpreting change in scores on patient-reported outcome instruments is a key aspect of instrument development. Without interpretation guidelines, the clinical meaning of significant improvements observed within a treatment group cannot be ascertained. While the field has contemplated this topic for several decades, there remains inconsistency in terminology, methods, and application. Careful selection of methods can result in determining when change is meaningful, but researchers must keep an open mind to the methods that best fit their study and instrument. In many cases, anchor-based methods are appropriate, but the statistical model that evaluates them should be defensible (eg, linear regression, repeated-measures modeling, logistic regression). Sometimes, researchers must entertain the use of novel methods that may be more appropriate for their planned studies and instrument (eg, standard setting, exit interviews, conjoint analysis). The selection of the method is best supported by clear, transparent communication with the regulatory agency to ensure that the method can support its goals.