FDA Issues Draft Guidance for Clinical Trials Using Enrichment Strategies

07 January 2013 Personalized Medicine Bulletin Blog

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a guidance document related to the conduct of clinical trials to support approval of human drugs and biological products “Draft Guidance for Industry: Enrichment Strategies for Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Human Drugs and Biological Products” (“Guidance Document”). The document is intended to provide guidance for enrichment strategies that can be used in clinical trials intended to support effectiveness and safety claims in new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics licensed applications (BLAs).

As used in the Guidance Document, the term “enrichment” is defined as the prospective use of any patient characteristic to select a study population in which detection of a drug effect (if one is present) is more likely than it would be in an unselected population. The Guidance Document notes that the FDA is interested in targeting treatments to the people who can benefit from the therapy (i.e., personalized medicine) but that the decision to use an enrichment design is largely left to the study sponsor. The Document notes that there are many reasons to use such study designs, including an enhanced benefit-risk relationship if a population with an increased likelihood of response can be identified, and efficiency in drug development, as smaller studies can often be used to demonstrate effectiveness. In addition, enrichment studies can be used to identify patients to whom the drug should be given and to obtain information as to whether the drug or biologic can be used in a broader population than was studied.

Genomic and proteomic markers, typically used in companion diagnostics and personalized medicine, are two of the several suggested patient characteristics for selecting an enriched study population. When proteomic or genetic markers are used in an enrichment strategy, adequate characterization of the test for the marker is noted to be critical. If the marker is to be used after approval of the drug, the quality of the marker continues to be relevant to the drug, even after approval. In some cases, the Guidance Document notes, the performance characteristic of the marker is not well documented, but the enriched trial itself may constitute an important source of information about the sensitivity and specificity of the marker.

In addition, several designs are suggested for predictive enrichments studies: (1) a study randomizing only marker-positive patients; (2) a study containing both marker positive and negative patients; (3) a study in alternative therapy non-responders to support claim of effectiveness in non-responders; and (4) a study in patients intolerant of a prior treatment.

Comments and suggestions regarding the Guidance Document should be submitted by February 15, 2013 to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061,Rockville,MD20852. For questions regarding the Draft Guidance, individuals are encouraged to contact (CDER) Robert Temple, 301-796-2270 (CBER) Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, 301-827-1800, or (CDRH) Robert L. Becker, Jr. 301-796-6211.

This Guidance Document joins a number of FDA guidances regarding clinical trial designs (including enrichment studies) and demonstrating effectiveness. Agency guidances are available at http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ