Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘clinical trials

Clinical Trials Policy Revision: For Better or Worse

leave a comment »

By: Jenn L. Nguyen, Ph.D., M.P.H.


source: pixabay

As the largest public funder of biomedical research in the United States, the NIH wants to ensure that conducted trials are relevant to health priorities of the US, trials are conducted efficiently and are not duplicates of previously conducted trials, and trials contribute to scientific knowledge. In an editorial in 2016, NIH leaders noted a need for quality and efficiency improvements to clinical trials. NIH has introduced several initiatives, to enhance clinical trials stewardship by addressing accountability, transparency, efficiency, and dissemination. However, along with the widely acknowledged improvements some recent changes may hinder the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

To address accountability, all investigators and staff conducting and overseeing clinical trials must take the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training. The training is mandatory for individuals involved with the design, conduct, oversight, or management of clinical trials. While the training may not be sufficient by itself, it does provide a standard of knowledge, a base of knowledge, standards, and guidelines for all clinical trials.

The second change requires that all grant applications for clinical trials be submitted under clinical trials specific funding opportunity announcements (FOA). Investigators interested in conducting a clinical trial can no longer submit under parent funding announcements, which made identifying clinical trials more difficult in the past. The FOAs will list specific review criteria for reviewers to consider clinical trials-related information, such as focus on the rationale, design, and operational and analysis plans. This new policy will increase NIH accountability and efficiency, as it will ensure that required information is submitted with each clinical trial application, allow staff to better track clinical trial proposals and study, and allow staff to uniformly apply appropriate review criteria.

A substantial change, however, is the limited eligibility of trainees to conduct interventional social science research, Institutional training (T) awards, which provide money to institutions for workforce training, do not allow money to be given to trainees involved in clinical trials (the exception is for D43s and K12s), Fellowship (F) awards, which support individual trainees,  do not support trainees involved in independently conducted clinical trials, but trainees can propose a research experience with a sponsor/co-sponsor.  For Career Development (K) awards, applicants may apply to either FOAs that specify “clinical trials required” or FOAs that are for “no independent clinical trials.” Scientists are concerned this may limit postdocs and students to get support for their fellowships and adequate career training.

To further address efficiency and accountability, applications must be submitted using a clinical trials protocol template that consolidates information from multiple forms, has structured data fields, and will collect information at the study level. This requirement will ensure that all investigators will submit the same information. In addition, the forms will contain fields forcing investigators to be clear and concise about their analytical and dissemination plans.

Addressing efficiency, NIH now requires use of a single Institutional Review Board (IRB) to review multisite studies. Prior, each institute involved with the study required duplicate or multiple IRB reviews, which involved the redundant assembly of experts to assure that the same proposed study was in line with the rights and protections of human and animal research subjects. Multiple reviews resulted in delays and at times, conflicting reviews. Guidance to establish a single IRB on record has been published.

Finally, there are significant changes for registration and reporting of clinical trials to address accountability, transparency, and dissemination. Investigators are now required to register their clinical trial(s) in the database within 21 days of enrollment of the first participant. NIH makes the argument that this effort may help reduce the number of trials that fail, as it will require scientists to disclose their results even if the studies do not support their hypotheses urthermore, all investigators must adhere to the NIH policy on Dissemination of NIH-clinical trials. There have been longstanding concerns that investigators are not reporting all results (especially negative or non-significant results, not reporting results in a timely manner, and even sometimes, deviating from their own research protocol.

Along with these initiatives, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) broadened what was considered a clinical trial: “a research study in which one or more human subjects are prospectively assigned to one or more interventions (which may include placebo or other control) to evaluate the effects of those interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes.” Adaption of this updated definition did not take effect until earlier this year and has alarmed some scientists. Clinical trials have been traditionally understood as experiments or observations for/in clinical settings to answer three questions: 1) Does the proposed treatment/intervention work? 2) Is the proposed treatment or intervention more effective than other treatments? 3) Are there side effects?

Scientists critical of the new definition first and foremost recognize and appreciate the motivation for NIH to increase transparency and replicability, specifically efforts for pre-registration, data sharing, and protocol sharing of trials. Yet, many scientists who conduct basic and behavioral research disagree agree that their work and studies should now be considered clinical trials. These scientists, and even scientific associations, remarked that the new clinical trials definition is too broad and traditional criteria to evaluate a trial might be inappropriately applied to their proposal. There is also concern that these changes will increase the administrative and bureaucratic burden for many scientists, specifically for exploratory scientists. To address and alleviate concerns, NIH released a set of case studies to help scientists identify and understand what is considered a clinical trial and must adhere to all the changes in the policy. While this effort provided clarification, many scientists are calling for NIH to hold further conversation with the extramural community.

While scientists recognize the need and laud NIH’s effort to address clinical trials stewardship, many of the same scientists are worried that these benchmarks set the wrong standards for success and rigor. Scientists are also worried about the additional administrative burden these changes will bring. As NIH enforces the policies, they have promised to monitor trouble issues and work with the community to find a solution without compromise.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!


Written by sciencepolicyforall

February 20, 2018 at 3:52 pm

FDA stem cell therapy crackdown: a stem-free clinic

leave a comment »

By: Belinda Hauser, Ph.D.


source: pixabay

The building blocks of life are stem cells, they don’t kill or cure anything, but they promote regeneration. Stem cells are classically defined as an undifferentiated cell capable of giving rise to more stem cells or differentiating into any cell type. Stem cells have given scientists insight into understanding how cells function and dysfunction in development. Moreover, research in stem cell development has lead to promising treatment possibilities; it is believed that stem cells have the potential to repair or replace damage caused by age, injury or disease. However, stem cell therapies have been controversial, arising from the practice of isolating and culturing stem cell derived from human embryos, and later, introducing pluripotent stem cells from previously differentiated cell types. This controversy is entrenched in both political and ethical debates, broadly affecting the regulation of cord blood harvesting, human cloning and clinical trials.

Today, common stem cell therapy uses include blood transplants or bone marrow transplants. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has only approved hematopoietic progenitor cells, derived from umbilical cord blood, for use in the United States. Harvesting of cord blood is considered safe for the mother and baby since the blood is collected after birth. Stem cells collected from the blood of the cut cord are used to treat a variety of diseases including blood cancers such as leukemia, and lymphomas, and blood diseases of the immune system. Given the scarcity of approved options, patients desperately seeking therapy may turn to treatments that are illegal and potentially harmful. The FDA has gone to great lengths to evaluate the potential risk associated with new and current products through both animal and human studies in order to ensure safety in the use of biological products. Thereby, to determine the effectiveness and safety of new investigative products, well-controlled human studies must be designed and executed. This attention is applied to all clinical trials and is well documented. For example, the federal government requires all clinical trials to be cited and it is standard protocol for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to list all clinical trials being conducted via This promotes awareness and gives consumers an opportunity to be well informed of all trials being conducted.

Preceding the FDA’s goal to develop and license stem cell therapies for patients and prevent consumer exploitation is their concern for consumer safety and education. In March 2017, the FDA provided materials to clarify the benefits and risks of stem cell therapies. They warned that when injected, unproven stem cell treatments present the risk of mobility of implanted cells, i.e. metastasis, risk of excessive proliferation, i.e. tumor growth, contamination, stem cell failure, or reaction of the injection site. Therefore, new investigative products must go through a rigorous protocol to determine their effectiveness and safety in well-controlled human studies.

In August 2017, the FDA cracked down on unscrupulous stem cell clinics, announcing increased enforcement of regulations and oversight of stem cells clinics across the country. For example, the FDA seized five vials of (live) smallpox virus vaccine from the California stem cell treatment centers in Rancho Mirage and Beverly Hills, California.  A Florida clinic, now called U.S. Stem Cell Clinic of Sunrise, Florida, caught the attention of the FDA after stem cell treatments it delivered to women with macular degeneration, an eye disease, caused permanent damage. Staff member used stem cells from fat isolated from each patient’s stomach and then injected cells into their eyes. A common practice of clinical trials is to pay human subject-volunteers to participate in studies. However, to receive this unproven treatment patients were required to pay $5,000 to receive the stem cell injections. Permitting patients to pay for participation is a topic of ethical debate for even the most scrupulously designed trials. The FDA issued a notice warning U.S. Stem Cell Clinic for marketing products without FDA approval and condemning their exploitation of consumers. An inspection performed  by FDA investigators found evidence of significant deviations from good manufacturing practices in manufacturing of at least 256 lots of stem cell products produced by the clinic. In an attempt to impede the investigation, the U.S. Stem Cell Clinic attempted to refused access of the FDA investigators to the employees of the clinic.  Ultimately, the clinic was cited for failure to establish appropriate written procedures to prevent contamination, risking infection of human subjects. It is required that U.S. Stem Cell Clinic comply and correct the failures stated in the warning letter. If the clinic fails to address the outlined issues, actions will be taken by the FDA, these include seizure, injunction and or prosecution.  Moreover, U.S. Stem Cell Clinic  administered the product both intravenously and directly into the spinal cord of patients hoping to treat a number of serious diseases (Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) heart disease, pulmonary fibrosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), all without FDA review or approval. In fact the FDA has not approved any biological products manufactured by U.S. Stem Cell Clinic for any use.

Overall, the challenge of regulation and compliance continues to loom over all stem cell clinics in the U.S.; however, the FDA is dedicated to enforcing continuous regulation, while educating and protecting U.S. consumers. The building blocks of life are stem cells, manipulated properly, they have the ability to treat disease without posing unacceptable risk. Safely figuring out how will take time.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 17, 2018 at 11:43 am

Science Policy Around the Web – September 12, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Saurav Seshadri, PhD

Vaccination Medicine Vaccine Ampoules

Source: maxpixel

Infectious Diseases

Is a Zika vaccine worth the effort?

A collaboration between pharmaceutical giant Sanofi and the US Army to develop a vaccine for the Zika virus has come to an end.  About a year ago, Sanofi received $43.2 million in funding from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA, a division of DHHS) to move a Zika vaccine candidate, generated by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, into Phase II development.  BARDA has now decided to ‘de-scope’ the project, leading Sanofi to abandon its efforts to develop or license the candidate.

The number of cases of Zika has declined sharply since its peak in early 2016.  While this ‘evolving epidemiology’ has hampered Zika-related clinical research and drug development, it may actually be a welcome relief for Sanofi. The French company has endured months of political pressure to agree to pricing assurances for any vaccine produced from the collaboration, with lawmakers, including Senator Bernie Sanders, arguing that it would be a ‘bad deal‘ for a private company to profit from research funded in part by American taxpayers.  In particular, the exclusivity of Sanofi’s license,  uncommon for such agreements, has been singled out as ‘monopolistic’.  Sanofi has been defending itself vigorously against this characterization, pointing out that it took on significant risk itself for a vaccine that was far from approval, and that it has already discussed reimbursing the US government for its investment through milestone and royalty payments.  Ultimately, ending the collaboration puts this PR-damaging debate to rest, while also providing Sanofi a face-saving opportunity to avoid committing to a drug with limited prospective demand and profitability (as recently transpired with the dengue fever vaccine Dengvaxia, which only reached 55 of its projected 200 million euros in sales in 2016).

In its statement, Sanofi says that it continues ‘to believe that public-private partnerships are the right model to address…public health challenges’ posed by infectious diseases.  Indeed, several pharmaceutical companies responded to the WHO’s declaration of Zika as a public health emergency in 2016; of these, Takeda and Moderna appear to still have ongoing large-scale collaborations with BARDA to develop Zika vaccines.  While the drop in Zika prevalence is clearly a good thing, it’s unclear how it will affect the economic and scientific feasibility of such collaborations in the future.  One solution is to promote vaccine development before an outbreak occurs: groups such as the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) hope to facilitate this approach, but the need to allocate limited resources makes its practicality questionable.  However, the alternative is usefully illustrated by the Ebola epidemic of 2014.  Despite concerted global efforts that led to successful vaccine development by Merck, current outbreaks are small enough that the deployment of vaccines may not even be warranted.  Barring an overhaul of regulatory processes and/or financial priorities, it seems likely that when the next epidemic emerges, we’ll be playing catch-up again.

(Eric Sagonowsky, FiercePharma)


Is every human brain study a clinical trial?

Basic research into the mechanisms underlying cognition and their impairment in a range of brain disorders is the primary focus of hundreds of neuroscience laboratories.  While such studies feed into drug discovery for diseases such as autism, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, since they do not directly involve testing any treatments, they are not commonly considered to be clinical trials.  This perception became technically incorrect in 2014, following an NIH announcement broadly redefining ‘clinical trial’ to include any study in which ‘one or more human subjects’ receive an intervention and ‘health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes’ are observed.  Last year, the NIH revised its data reporting policies for such trials.  These more stringent policies are now being implemented, and will affect grant applications submitted in 2018.

Several members of the scientific community have begun to voice their concern about the changes.  The Association for Psychological Science (APS) and Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences (FABBS) have both sent critical letters to the NIH. A petition by neuroscience researchers pushing back against the policy has garnered over 3,400 signatures.  Opponents argue that the requirements imposed by the ‘clinical trial’ label are overly burdensome and would impede basic research.  These requirements include timely study registration and public disclosure of results through Further, they demand that all staff receive Good Clinical Practices training. Investigators dread the bureaucracy that will be involved in complying with these mandates.  Perhaps most concerning for scientists is the constraint that new proposals must respond to a Funding Opportunity Announcement, which have specific stipulations about study objectives, design, oversight, and evaluation.  While these rules are intended to promote scientific rigor and transparency, the more immediate effects may be to stifle exploration and creativity and to deter basic researchers who may not know how to tailor their applications to reflect clinical values.

For its part, the NIH is steadfast that the broad redefinition is ‘intentional’ and that current standards of data reporting are ‘unacceptable’.  Policymakers argue that they are simply asking scientists to inform the public about the existence and outcome of their research.  While this sounds unimpeachable in theory, scientists are already reporting practical challenges: for example, asking potential study participants to sign a clinical trial consent form can scare them away.  While the NIH is making efforts to provide guidance to the community, it is running out of time to stamp out confusion before next January, let alone achieve enthusiastic compliance.  Neuroscientists are likely to face setbacks in funding and progress as a result.

(Sara Reardon, Nature News)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 12, 2017 at 5:52 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – July 21, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Rachel F Smallwood, PhD

Source: pixabay


Engineered Cell Therapy for Cancer Gets Thumbs Up from FDA Advisers

A panel of advisers has recommended that the FDA approve chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy for treatment of acute B-cell lymphoblastomic leukemia. The committee unanimously agreed that the risk to benefit ratio was favorable enough to proceed with approval of the drug (tisagenlecleucel), manufactured by Novartis. CAR-T therapy utilizes a patient’s own immune cells to find and attack cancer cells. In a recent trial in humans, 82.5% of patients went into remission following treatment with the drug; there have also been promising results from its use in glioblastoma treatment. The treatment would specifically be for pediatric and young adult patients who did not respond well to initial treatments or who relapsed from being in remission.

Despite have strong positive effects, there are potential risks posed by CAR-T therapy. In the study mentioned above, almost half of the patients experienced an inflammatory reaction called cytokine release syndrome. Although all of those cases were treatable, the condition can be life-threatening. Novartis also reported neurological problems. Other CAR-T trials have had several deaths due to brain swelling, but those were in adult populations and were some differences in the therapies.

The FDA often does take the recommendations of its advisers, but there is much to consider in this decision. It would essentially be approving a living drug that is individualized to each patient; the patients’ own blood cells are sent to a manufacturing center, where they are genetically engineered to target leukemia cells. The cell population is then allowed to proliferate, and the entire process takes around twenty-two days. This process presents a quality assurance and control problem to the FDA. However, the target population typically has a poor prognosis and very few options, so the panel considers the potential for increased survival and quality of life to be worth the risks. (Heidi Ledford, Nature News)

Stem-Cell Therapy

Unapproved Stem-Cell Treatments Touted on Federal Database Clinicaltrials.Gov is an online database, curated by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, that logs clinical studies occurring around the country and allows them to be searched by patients, family members, healthcare providers, and researchers. The information on the site is provided by the researchers or sponsors of the individual studies themselves. It allows patients and healthy people to become aware of opportunities to participate in medical research. These studies involve a wide range of treatments, including drugs, devices, behavioral therapies, and procedures.

A recent study found that the database is being abused by clinics advertising for stem cell trials. These trials target individuals looking for treatment for a variety of conditions, and all of them charge for participation. There are very few FDA-approved stem cell therapies, and most clinics that utilize stem cell therapies assert that they do not need FDA approval since they are practicing medicine and do not substantially alter the stem cells (although that is disputed).  Since the researchers themselves indicate in the database whether they need FDA approval, there is little oversight to ensure these studies are correctly representing the risks and benefits of their treatment.

Although a disclaimer was added this spring that informs visitors that the presence of a trial in the database does not indicate government endorsement of it, many people do not realize that they could potentially be participating in a for-profit procedure that does not have the proper oversight to ensure patient safety. In one such case, three women were blinded who paid to receive stem cell therapy for macular degeneration. Most legitimate research studies will not require payment for participation, although travel and lodging costs associated with participation may be incurred.

While many patients may receive treatment at one of these clinics without an adverse event or even with a positive result, critics of these types of clinics are calling for regulation of entries into the system. They assert that a federal resource for medical research should not be used to advertise for for-profit clinics that are utilizing therapies that have not been studied or reviewed for safety and efficacy. (Laurie McGinley, Washington Post)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

July 21, 2017 at 10:08 am

Science Policy Around the Web – June 16, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

Source: pixabay

Science and Politics

Politics in Science – It’s Not Just the U.S.!

Romania is a country in eastern Europe that joined the European Union (EU) in 2007. Scientists there are few and far between; research spending only accounts for 0.49% of GDP, the lowest in Europe (the US spent 2.7% in 2016). After joining the EU, Romanian researchers were encouraged to apply for European merit-based grants and sit on international review boards such as the National Research Council and the National Council of Ethics. It seemed that research was making slow but steady progress, but the new administration elected this year has shaken things up in all facets of government, including scientific research.

The new research minister, Serban Valeca, removed the international members appointed to government councils that oversee research funding, ethics, innovation and science policy, and replaced them with city council members, government-loyal union members, researchers from second tier Romanian institutes and even a surgeon being investigated for embezzlement. Grant review panels have been shuffled to remove international scientists and replace them with domestic researchers, but only if they have a certificate saying their university approves of their participation. These changes mark a departure from welcoming international input into Romanian proceedings and a movement towards scientific isolation.

To combat these changes, Romanian scientists have formed an organization, Ad Astra, which calls on researchers to boycott grant evaluations. Combined with the shuffling, the councils have been suspended for 3 months, which delays funding and puts already under-funded researchers in peril. The European University Association calls the policies deeply concerning, and although the current president may disagree with the research minister’s handling of the situation, his political ties ensure he won’t hold much sway over how this plays out. A computer scientist at the University Politehnica in Bucharest, Costin Raiciu, is concerned that the policies will affect talented researchers who have returned to Romania and says, “Without [merit-based] funding, people would either give up research altogether or move out of the country”. This is an all too familiar scenario in which it is apparent that policy and science must cooperate to produce ideal outcomes. (Alexandra Nistoroiu, ScienceInsider)

Mental Health

Clinical Trials Down, Basic Research Up at NIMH

Mental health is a notoriously tricky field. The development of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in the 1950s has historically been a way to diagnose patients with mental health issues, and then give appropriate treatment. This has proved to be an imprecise treatment strategy, because within a category of diagnosis there is a broad spectrum of behaviors, and underlying this behavior there may be multiple causes. The NIH’s Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) seeks to characterize 1,000,000 people by behavior, genetics, environment, and physiology. Researchers from the NIMH will send questionnaires evaluating behavior to detect mood and reward responses for this group of people. When this mental health evaluation is combined with information about their genetics, lifestyle and environment, scientists can characterize mental health disorders more specifically.

Many clinician researchers are upset by the steep decline in clinical trial research funded by NIMH, which has become higher profile with director Joshua Gordon’s arrival in 2016. NIMH seeks to route funding to study mental disorders using a basic research approach before spending time and money on costly clinical trials which too often lead to inconclusive or disappointing results. In 2011 NIMH launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which encourages research proposals to include a hunt for the mechanism underlying mental health studies. Since the initial call to include a RDoC perspective in grant applications, the incidence of RDoC appearing in funded applications has increased while mention of the DSM has decreased. Other buzzwords that are present in funded grants include biomarker, circuit, target and mechanism.

These data represent a shift in how funding decisions will proceed in mental health but may have broader reaching implications for other areas of research. In a blog post Dr. Gordon writes, “the idea that RDoC will facilitate rapid, robust and reproducible neurobiological explanations for psychopathology (as observed within and across DSM disorders) represents a hypothesis”. It remains to be seen if RDoC is an effective metric to evaluate successful grants. (Sara Reardon, Nature News)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Growing Need for More Clinical Trials in Pediatrics

leave a comment »

By: Erin Turbitt, PhD

Source: Flickr by Claudia Seidensticker via Creative Commons

      There have been substantial advances in biomedical research in recent decades in the US, yet children have not benefited through improvements in health and well-being to the same degree as adults. An illustrative example is that many drugs used to treat children have not been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Comparatively, many more drugs have been approved for use in adult populations. As a result, some drugs are prescribed to pediatric patients outside the specifications for which they have been approved for use, referred to as ‘off-label’ prescribing. For example, some drugs approved for Alzheimer’s Disease are used to treat Autism in children. The drug donepezil used to treat dementia in Alzheimer’s patients is used to improve sleep quality in children with Autism. Another example is the use of the pain medication paracetamol in premature infants in the absence of the knowledge on the effects among this population. While decisions about off-label prescribing are usually informed by scientific evidence and professional judgement, there may be associated harms. There is growing recognition that children are not ‘little adults’ and their developing brains and bodies may react differently to those of fully developed adults. While doses for children are often calculated by scaling from adult dosing after adjusting for body weight, the stage of development of the child also affects responses to drugs. Babies have difficulties breaking down drugs due to the immaturity of the kidneys and liver, whereas toddlers are able to more effectively breakdown drugs.

The FDA requires data about drug safety and efficacy in children before issuing approvals for the use of drugs in pediatric populations. The best way to produce this evidence is through clinical drug trials. Historically, the use of children in research has been ethically fraught, with some of the early examples from vaccine trials, such as the development of the smallpox vaccine in the 1790s. Edward Jenner, who developed the smallpox vaccine, has famously been reported to have tested the vaccine on several young children including his own without consent from the children’s families. Over the next few centuries, many researchers would test new treatments including drugs and surgical procedures on institutionalized children. It was not until the early 20th century that these practices were criticized and debate began over the ethical use of children in research. Today, in general, the ethical guidance for inclusion of children in research specifies that individuals unable to exercise informed consent (including minors) are permitted to participate in research providing informed consent is gained from their parent or legal guardian. In addition to a guardian’s informed consent, assent (‘affirmative agreement’) of the child is also required where appropriate. Furthermore, research protocols involving children must be subject to rigorous evaluation by Institutional Review Boards to allow researchers to conduct their research.

Contributing to the lack of evidence of the effects of drugs in children is that fewer clinical trials are conducted in children than adults. One study reports that from 2005-2010, there were 10x fewer trials registered in the US for children compared to trials registered for adults. Recognizing the need to increase the number of pediatric clinical trials, the FDA introduced incentives to encourage the study of interventions in pediatric populations: the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). The BPCA delays approval of competing generic drugs by six months and encourages NIH to prioritize pediatric clinical trials for drugs that require further evidence in children. The PREA requires more companies to have pediatric-focused drugs assessed in children. Combined, these initiatives have resulted in benefits such as improving the labeling of over 600 drugs to include pediatric safety information, such as approved use and dosing information. Noteworthy examples include two asthma medications, four influenza vaccines, six medications for seizure disorders and two products for treating migraines. However, downsides to these incentives have also been reported. Pediatricians have voiced concern over the increasing cost of some these drugs developed specifically for children, which have involved minimal innovation. For example, approval of liquid formulations of a drug used to treat heart problems in children has resulted in this formulation costing 700 times more than the tablet equivalent.

A further aspect that must be considered when conducting pediatric clinical trials is the large dropout rates of participants, and difficulty recruiting adequate numbers of children (especially for trials including rare disease populations) sometimes leading to discontinuation of trials. A recent report indicates that 19% of trials were discontinued early from 2008-2010 with an estimated 8,369 children enrolled in these trials that were never completed. While some trials are discontinued for safety reasons or efficacy findings that suggest changes in standard of care, many (37%) are discontinued due to poor patient accrual. There is insufficient research on the factors influencing parental decision-making for entering their child to a clinical trial and research into this area may lead to improvements in patient recruitment for these trials. This research must include or be informed by members of the community, such as parents of children deciding whether to enroll their child in a clinical trial, and disease advocacy groups. The FDA has an initiative to support the inclusion of community members in the drug development process. Through the Patient-Focused Drug Development initiative, patient perspectives are sought of the benefit-risk assessment process. For example, patients are asked to comment on what worries them the most about their condition, what they would consider to be meaningful improvement, and how they would weigh potential benefits of treatments with common side-effects. This initiative involves public meetings held from 2013-2017 focused on over 20 disease areas. While the majority of the diseases selected more commonly affect adults than children, some child-specific disease areas are included. For example, on May 4, 2017 public meeting was held on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Autism. The meeting included discussions from a panel of caregivers about the significant health effects and daily impacts of autism and current approaches to treatment.

While it is encouraging that the number of pediatric trials are increasing, ultimately leading to improved treatments and outcomes for children, there remain many challenges ahead for pediatric drug research. Future research in this area must explore parental decision-making and experiences, which can inform of the motivations and risk tolerances of parents considering entering their child to a clinical trial and potentially improve trial recruitment rates. This research can also contribute to ensuring that clinical trials are ethically conducted; adequately balancing the need for more research with the potential for harms to pediatric research participants.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 24, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – April 25, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Eric Cheng, PhD

Photo source:


FDA Nominee Gottlieb Tackles Vaccines, Trial Design at Hearing

The President’s nominee to head the FDA, Scott Gottlieb, MD, sat before lawmakers for his confirmation hearing before the Senate’s health committee. Gottlieb, a hospitalist and former FDA official, was questioned on many controversial topics on health.  On the topic of vaccines and autism, Gottlieb said, “I think we need to come to the point where we can accept ‘No’ for an answer, and come to the conclusion that there is no causal link between vaccinations and autism.”

On the topic of double-blind randomized trials as the “gold standard” for medical treatment research, Gottlieb was more cautious. He believed that there are more “opportunities to modernize how we do clinical trials in ways that aren’t going to sacrifice on the gold standard of safety and effectiveness. Perhaps there are ways to think of clinical trial constructs that don’t require the tight randomization that current clinical trials do.” What this suggests is a push towards more adaptive trials that would allow researchers to review results before a study’s endpoint and would allow changes to treatment groups in a study, which is in contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials.

Another less controversial but popular topic in the hearing was on opioid abuse. Gottlieb believed that opioid abuse is “a public health emergency on the order of Ebola and Zika” and that bolder steps will be needed to address this issue.

The committee will vote on whether to move Gottlieb’s nomination to the Senate floor after the Senate returns in late April from a 2-week recess. (Joyce Frieden, MedPage Today)

Healthcare Policy

Trump Administration Still Plans to Undo Parts of the ACA, Tom Price Testifies

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price made one thing clear during his testimony to the House appropriations committee: “The administration is still intent on dismantling parts of the Affordable Care Act even if Republicans lack the votes to rewrite it.”

Price discussed how, as the Health and Human Services Secretary, his department could scale back several federal mandates that include “essential benefits” in coverage to make insurance plans cheaper. He did not say if the administration will continue to provide cost-sharing subsidies for insurers, which has been a topic of discussion on items to change in the Affordable Care Act. However, removing subsidies will bring “significant premium increases,” said Michael Adelberg, a health-care principal at FaegreBD Consulting. He predicts that the removal of these subsidies will cause some insurers to drop out while the remaining insurers will seek rate increases to compensate.

Regardless of these discussions, the individual mandate remains in place with Price telling the panel, “So long as the law’s on the books, we at the department are obliged to uphold the law.” (Juliet Eilperin and Mike DeBonis, Washington Post)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

April 25, 2017 at 9:53 am