Each assessment for abuse liability is as unique as the molecule in question, reiterating the importance of early awareness, understanding the current regulatory landscape, and being able to plan your development and post-marketing accordingly.
In our previous blog post, we focused on the value of early drug abuse potential testing. In this blog, we’ll delve into important regulatory and market access considerations for abuse liability testing that can help drug developers maximize the potential of their molecule.
The use of MRI to monitor the progression of brain tumors has been an accepted method both in the clinic and preclinically as well. Glioblastoma multiforme (glioblastoma; GBM) is a fast-growing glioma that develops from star-shaped glial cells (astrocytes and oligodendrocytes) that support the health of the nerve cells within the brain. These tumors are usually highly malignant because the cells reproduce quickly and they are supported by a large network of blood vessels. GBM is the most common and most aggressive form of malignant primary brain tumors, affecting nearly 23,000 people in the United States annually. Most preclinical studies in glioma utilize survival as the primary endpoint, which provides limited information about disease progression or primary tumor response to treatment.
Clinical trials are becoming increasingly complex and competitive, so attracting the best investigator sites to participate in a trial is a crucial step in meeting patient enrollment targets.
Delaying approval by even one day can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, depending on the drug. This means that timely trial implementation, including patient enrollment, may add significant value.
Meeting patient enrollment milestones in cooperation with investigators has traditionally been viewed as the responsibility of the contract research organization (CRO). Now, important new data show that a sponsor’s choice of a central lab impacts the willingness of investigators to work with a sponsor on clinical trials. Continue reading
Assessment of abuse potential of compounds in development is one of the most complex regulatory requirements and constitutes a critical exercise for sponsors and regulators. The strategy for the assessment of abuse potential cannot be customized and requires individual evaluation of the compound, its target indication and the entirety of the nonclinical and clinical safety database. In July 2016, the United States Congress passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) bill to address prescription opioid abuse and overdoses that have killed more than 165,000 people between 1999 and 20141.
Given this increased spotlight and focus on preventing opioid abuse and deaths in the US and abroad, it has become more critical than ever to better understand the abuse liability potential of a drug as early as possible in the development process. As part of the overall assessment of drug safety for a New Drug Application (NDA) in the United States or a Market Authorization Application (MAA) outside the United States, drug abuse potential testing is required – regardless of indication – on any drug that is active in the brain. This encompasses all properties of the drug (e.g., chemical, pharmacological, pharmacokinetic, clinical safety, etc.).
In the first of a two-part blog, we share important early considerations for abuse liability testing to help drug developers test the abuse potential of their molecule and better understand their path to viability in this changing landscape.