基于科学的药物开发中的民族桥梁回顾最近的先例和建议的步骤。

IF 3.2 Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Ewoud-Jan van Hoogdalem, John P Jones Iii, John Constant, Meguru Achira
{"title":"基于科学的药物开发中的民族桥梁回顾最近的先例和建议的步骤。","authors":"Ewoud-Jan van Hoogdalem,&nbsp;John P Jones Iii,&nbsp;John Constant,&nbsp;Meguru Achira","doi":"10.2174/1574884714666190408125206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Exposure, safety and/or efficacy of drugs are subject to potential differences between human races or ethnicities, as acknowledged by regulatory guidance and by label texts of various, but not all approved drugs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of the present review was to assess recent regulatory precedence on drug use and race or ethnicity, with the goal of identifying opportunities for increasing the informative value of clinical ethnic or racial bridging in drug development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Recently, (January 2014-July 2018) FDA approved drug product label texts and approval packages were reviewed for claims, comments and underlying data on use of the product in specific ethnic or racial groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 266 FDA-approved products, no product with unambiguous race- or ethnicity specific dosing instructions was retrieved. A small majority (55%) was approved with a claim or comment on race or ethnicity, and of these, a large majority (87%) was based on population pharmacokinetic data analysis. Statements were often related to incidence of a genotype for drug metabolizing enzyme or for other risk factors, or were related to body weight. Absence of clinically relevant exposure differences were often justified in terms of exposure ratios that notably exceeded the typical 0.80-1.25 no-effect boundary.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recent precedence reflected a pragmatic, descriptive approach of racial or ethnic bridging, apparently meeting current regulatory expectations, whilst not resulting in strict guidance to prescribers. We recommend further work on defining the objectives of bridging studies, as well as criteria for their design and data analysis. Regarding the latter, we recommend investigating the value of prospectively defined tests for similarity with appropriate follow-up analysis in the case where the test has failed.</p>","PeriodicalId":10746,"journal":{"name":"Current clinical pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2174/1574884714666190408125206","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Science-based Ethnic Bridging in Drug Development; Review of Recent Precedence and Suggested Steps Forward.\",\"authors\":\"Ewoud-Jan van Hoogdalem,&nbsp;John P Jones Iii,&nbsp;John Constant,&nbsp;Meguru Achira\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1574884714666190408125206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Exposure, safety and/or efficacy of drugs are subject to potential differences between human races or ethnicities, as acknowledged by regulatory guidance and by label texts of various, but not all approved drugs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of the present review was to assess recent regulatory precedence on drug use and race or ethnicity, with the goal of identifying opportunities for increasing the informative value of clinical ethnic or racial bridging in drug development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Recently, (January 2014-July 2018) FDA approved drug product label texts and approval packages were reviewed for claims, comments and underlying data on use of the product in specific ethnic or racial groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 266 FDA-approved products, no product with unambiguous race- or ethnicity specific dosing instructions was retrieved. A small majority (55%) was approved with a claim or comment on race or ethnicity, and of these, a large majority (87%) was based on population pharmacokinetic data analysis. Statements were often related to incidence of a genotype for drug metabolizing enzyme or for other risk factors, or were related to body weight. Absence of clinically relevant exposure differences were often justified in terms of exposure ratios that notably exceeded the typical 0.80-1.25 no-effect boundary.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recent precedence reflected a pragmatic, descriptive approach of racial or ethnic bridging, apparently meeting current regulatory expectations, whilst not resulting in strict guidance to prescribers. We recommend further work on defining the objectives of bridging studies, as well as criteria for their design and data analysis. Regarding the latter, we recommend investigating the value of prospectively defined tests for similarity with appropriate follow-up analysis in the case where the test has failed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current clinical pharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2174/1574884714666190408125206\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current clinical pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574884714666190408125206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574884714666190408125206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:药物的暴露、安全性和/或有效性受制于人类种族或民族之间的潜在差异,正如监管指南和各种(但不是所有)已批准药物的标签文本所承认的那样。目的:本综述的目的是评估近期药物使用和种族或民族的监管优先性,目的是确定在药物开发中增加临床种族或种族衔接的信息价值的机会。方法:近期(2014年1月- 2018年7月)对FDA批准的药品标签文本和批准包装进行了审查,以了解特定民族或种族群体使用该产品的声明、评论和基础数据。结果:在266种fda批准的产品中,没有一种产品具有明确的种族或民族特定剂量说明。一小部分(55%)批准了关于种族或民族的主张或评论,其中大部分(87%)是基于群体药代动力学数据分析。陈述通常与药物代谢酶基因型的发生率或其他危险因素有关,或与体重有关。在明显超过典型的0.80-1.25无影响界限的暴露比方面,没有临床相关的暴露差异通常是合理的。结论:最近的先例反映了一种实用的、描述性的种族或民族衔接方法,显然符合当前的监管期望,同时不会对处方者产生严格的指导。我们建议进一步确定桥接研究的目标,以及桥接研究的设计和数据分析标准。关于后者,我们建议在测试失败的情况下,调查前瞻性定义的相似性测试的价值,并进行适当的后续分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Science-based Ethnic Bridging in Drug Development; Review of Recent Precedence and Suggested Steps Forward.

Background: Exposure, safety and/or efficacy of drugs are subject to potential differences between human races or ethnicities, as acknowledged by regulatory guidance and by label texts of various, but not all approved drugs.

Objective: The objective of the present review was to assess recent regulatory precedence on drug use and race or ethnicity, with the goal of identifying opportunities for increasing the informative value of clinical ethnic or racial bridging in drug development.

Methods: Recently, (January 2014-July 2018) FDA approved drug product label texts and approval packages were reviewed for claims, comments and underlying data on use of the product in specific ethnic or racial groups.

Results: Among the 266 FDA-approved products, no product with unambiguous race- or ethnicity specific dosing instructions was retrieved. A small majority (55%) was approved with a claim or comment on race or ethnicity, and of these, a large majority (87%) was based on population pharmacokinetic data analysis. Statements were often related to incidence of a genotype for drug metabolizing enzyme or for other risk factors, or were related to body weight. Absence of clinically relevant exposure differences were often justified in terms of exposure ratios that notably exceeded the typical 0.80-1.25 no-effect boundary.

Conclusions: Recent precedence reflected a pragmatic, descriptive approach of racial or ethnic bridging, apparently meeting current regulatory expectations, whilst not resulting in strict guidance to prescribers. We recommend further work on defining the objectives of bridging studies, as well as criteria for their design and data analysis. Regarding the latter, we recommend investigating the value of prospectively defined tests for similarity with appropriate follow-up analysis in the case where the test has failed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current clinical pharmacology
Current clinical pharmacology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Current Clinical Pharmacology publishes frontier reviews on all the latest advances in clinical pharmacology. The journal"s aim is to publish the highest quality review articles in the field. Topics covered include: pharmacokinetics; therapeutic trials; adverse drug reactions; drug interactions; drug metabolism; pharmacoepidemiology; and drug development. The journal is essential reading for all researchers in clinical pharmacology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信