Cargando…
The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary
In August 2020, the International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) released a new draft document, which for the first time combined nonclinical (S7B) and clinical (E14) Questions and Answers (Q&As) into 1 document. FDA describes the revision as a “value proposition”: if the human ether‐à‐go‐go ass...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290990/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33896027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcph.1880 |
_version_ | 1784749037562363904 |
---|---|
author | Darpo, Borje Ferber, Georg |
author_facet | Darpo, Borje Ferber, Georg |
author_sort | Darpo, Borje |
collection | PubMed |
description | In August 2020, the International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) released a new draft document, which for the first time combined nonclinical (S7B) and clinical (E14) Questions and Answers (Q&As) into 1 document. FDA describes the revision as a “value proposition”: if the human ether‐à‐go‐go assay and the in vivo study are performed in a standardized way, the number of dedicated thorough QT (TQT) studies can be reduced. In this article, we describe and discuss the Q&As that relate to clinical ECG evaluation. If supported by negative standardized nonclinical assays, Q&A 5.1 will obviate the need for a TQT study in the case that a >2‐fold exposure margin vs high clinical scenario cannot be obtained. Q&A 6.1 addresses drugs that are poorly tolerated in healthy subjects and cannot be studied at high doses or in placebo‐controlled studies; it therefore mainly applies to oncology drugs. It will enable sponsors to claim that a new drug has a “low likelihood of proarrhythmic effects” in the case that the mean corrected QT effect is <10 milliseconds at the time of market application. The E14 2015 revision allowed application of concentration–corrected QT analysis on data from routinely performed clinical pharmacology studies, for example, the first‐in‐human study and the proportion of dedicated TQT studies has since steadily decreased. It can be foreseen that the proposed new revision will further reduce the number of TQT studies. To achieve harmonization across regulatory regions, it seems important to reach consensus within the International Council on Harmonisation group on the new threshold proposed in 6.1. For this purpose, the Implementation Working Group has asked for public comments. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9290990 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92909902022-07-20 The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary Darpo, Borje Ferber, Georg J Clin Pharmacol Editor's Choice: Review In August 2020, the International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) released a new draft document, which for the first time combined nonclinical (S7B) and clinical (E14) Questions and Answers (Q&As) into 1 document. FDA describes the revision as a “value proposition”: if the human ether‐à‐go‐go assay and the in vivo study are performed in a standardized way, the number of dedicated thorough QT (TQT) studies can be reduced. In this article, we describe and discuss the Q&As that relate to clinical ECG evaluation. If supported by negative standardized nonclinical assays, Q&A 5.1 will obviate the need for a TQT study in the case that a >2‐fold exposure margin vs high clinical scenario cannot be obtained. Q&A 6.1 addresses drugs that are poorly tolerated in healthy subjects and cannot be studied at high doses or in placebo‐controlled studies; it therefore mainly applies to oncology drugs. It will enable sponsors to claim that a new drug has a “low likelihood of proarrhythmic effects” in the case that the mean corrected QT effect is <10 milliseconds at the time of market application. The E14 2015 revision allowed application of concentration–corrected QT analysis on data from routinely performed clinical pharmacology studies, for example, the first‐in‐human study and the proportion of dedicated TQT studies has since steadily decreased. It can be foreseen that the proposed new revision will further reduce the number of TQT studies. To achieve harmonization across regulatory regions, it seems important to reach consensus within the International Council on Harmonisation group on the new threshold proposed in 6.1. For this purpose, the Implementation Working Group has asked for public comments. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-06-08 2021-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9290990/ /pubmed/33896027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcph.1880 Text en © 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Editor's Choice: Review Darpo, Borje Ferber, Georg The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary |
title | The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary |
title_full | The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary |
title_fullStr | The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary |
title_full_unstemmed | The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary |
title_short | The New S7B/E14 Question and Answer Draft Guidance for Industry: Contents and Commentary |
title_sort | new s7b/e14 question and answer draft guidance for industry: contents and commentary |
topic | Editor's Choice: Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290990/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33896027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcph.1880 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT darpoborje thenews7be14questionandanswerdraftguidanceforindustrycontentsandcommentary AT ferbergeorg thenews7be14questionandanswerdraftguidanceforindustrycontentsandcommentary AT darpoborje news7be14questionandanswerdraftguidanceforindustrycontentsandcommentary AT ferbergeorg news7be14questionandanswerdraftguidanceforindustrycontentsandcommentary |