Abstract:Global alignment of expectations is required to achieve consistency in the planning, conduct, reporting, and regulatory review of model-informed drug development (MIDD) applications. An International Council for Harmonization (ICH) MIDD general principles guideline has been positioned to provide a common standard of practice including a framework for risk-based assessment of MIDD-derived evidence within the context of global regulatory decision-making. This perspective provides the background, our viewpoints, and the next steps in the development of this guideline. The relevance of model-informed approaches to drug development and regulatory review continues to grow in line with the need for greater efficiency in drug development.1 Appropriate utilization of model-informed drug development (MIDD) can enable selection of optimal doses, provide justification for the study population, and identify informative end points in design of more efficient trials. MIDD can further provide a framework enabling extrapolation to alternative treatment paradigms and different populations. The role of MIDD is also expanding in situations where other types of evidence generation are challenging due to the disease being studied,2, 3 and where there are ethical and/or practical aspects in studying the drug development question in the target population of interest4 or due to the complexity of the modality being investigated.5 Over the past 10 years, there has been significant growth in regional regulatory and industry interactions on topics related to MIDD. In particular, under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hosted a series of MIDD-oriented workshops and after a pilot phase have introduced paired project meetings dedicated to MIDD planning and application.6 The FDA has also revised MIDD-related guidance and established the first review standard operating procedure for MIDD-related submissions. There has been similar growth in interest via industry regulatory workshops and development of regional regulatory guidelines, including an MIDD guideline from the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA; Table 1). 2020 FDA Drug–Drug Interaction Assessment for Therapeutic Proteins Guidance for Industry Discussions on the potential need for an overarching MIDD general principles guideline were initiated following publication of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) good practice paper.7 This paper was a response to a European Medicines Agency (EMA) request for industry to provide a set of good practices to increase the consistency and quality of MIDD with regulatory submissions (https://bit.ly/3Pwj3Cn). Several International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) guidelines directly or indirectly relate to certain aspects of MIDD (Table 1). However, these guidelines focus on specific applications, and do not provide guidance on the conduct of the referenced modeling and simulation, pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD), or exposure-response approaches. The initial ICH topic proposal was developed by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) via its MIDD workgroup formed in response to an FDA MIDD-specific PDUFA VI commitment and for future expectation of joint industry-FDA interactions. This topic proposal had to be aligned with other proposals with respect to the ongoing update or de novo development of other ICH guidelines in the areas of MIDD or where MIDD would have been a major component. Consideration with respect to an update to the ICH E4 Dose–Response Guideline was also required. In June 2020, the ICH Management Committee agreed to launch an MIDD Discussion Group (DG; formed January 2021 with a 1 year term) to evaluate the proposal and recommend a path forward to the ICH Assembly. The DG aligned on the development of an MIDD general principles guideline as the next step and revision of the E4 Dose–response guideline as the highest priority subsequent step. Importantly, the DG recognized that an overarching guideline would not provide specifics with respect to a particular MIDD approach (e.g., population PK (PopPK)(/PD), exposure response, Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP), Model Based Meta-Analysis (MBMA), and Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetics (PBPK)). However, it would be inefficient to develop aligned individual ICH guidances for each approach as well as to try to cover all potential applications. The DG also believed the E4 Dose–Response revision would benefit from the MIDD general principles guideline. Similarly, the potential for future interplay of these approaches with other important areas, such as application to real-world evidence and integration with artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML), was considered better covered at a higher level. A subsequent topic proposal for the MIDD general principles guideline was approved by the ICH Assembly in November 2021 https://bit.ly/443ntFd) and was distributed to ICH parties. The ICH MIDD DG in parallel also developed a roadmap (https://bit.ly/46uh6g6) outlining ICH MIDD-related guidelines in order to help prioritize their development. Following the approval of the topic proposal, an ICH M15 Informal Working Group (IWG) was endorsed in June 2022, with initial discussions starting in September 2022. Under ICH processes, the IWG became an Expert Working Group (EWG) upon finalization and approval of the Concept Paper and Business Plan (https://bit.ly/3PD0nRx, https://bit.ly/3PAYZPp; November 2022). Development of the guideline is anticipated to require 3 years from initiation to completion. The scope includes the key focus on the concept of a risk-based assessment, the value of multidisciplinary team alignment with respect to MIDD strategy, and provision of high-level guidance on the need for early alignment with global regulators when the application of MIDD has higher impact on regulatory decision making. Although the application of risk-based assessment and consideration with respect to degree of impact of MIDD output has been a discussion point between industry and regulatory authorities for some time,6-8 the concept has been more recently formalized in the credibility framework within regulatory interactions in both the European Union9 and the FDA.10 Alignment of this approach has enabled successful interaction both with respect to the EMA Scientific Advice/Qualification and the FDA MIDD Paired Meeting Program. Based on the FDA's initial review experience, this framework is being explored for emerging modeling approaches, such as mechanistic modeling11 and AI/ML modeling. The need for closer alignment between MIDD practitioners and other decision makers has been a common theme across industry and regulatory agencies. More generally, there is a need to ensure multidisciplinary team alignment of the strategic planning of MIDD activities with the underlying clinical development questions, so that the activities can appropriately inform and be informed by the associated clinical studies. Globally, each region has separate procedures regarding how industry may engage with regulators in seeking advice on potential MIDD applications, alignment on how the work will be ultimately evaluated, and the extent to which it may guide regulatory decision making. However, it is important that the general need and considerations around the nature of the interactions are commonly shared. Achieving consistency of key aspects covered in the application process and subsequent sponsor-regulator discussions, together with a common view on the expected level of detail recommended by regulators, would help to ensure efficiency with respect to interactions as part of global drug development programs. At a practical level, the M15 guideline will provide an overarching framework that covers a wide range of MIDD approaches and applications. Its adoption should prevent the need for the construct of similar guidelines for each type of MIDD approach at the ICH level or indeed multiple regional guidelines. However, the guideline would not preclude the provision of specific additional guidelines with respect to individual approaches and applications, but rather capture the common features across approaches. The guideline should serve as a signpost, marking the evolution of MIDD from being a niche component in research and development (R&D) to being a key source for evidence generation. In this regard, the strategic planning of MIDD as an integrated part of drug development planning is considered an important recommendation. From a regulatory assessment perspective, adoption of a harmonized approach for decision making and transparency on the decision criteria, should improve consistency in outcomes and communication within and between organizations. The adoption of the final guideline and subsequent training and implementation opens the potential for a further global adoption of MIDD as a concept with wider understanding across the R&D community. In this regard, and as highlighted in Figure 1, achieving harmonization of understanding and expectations in the planning, conduct, reporting, and regulatory review of MIDD applications is part of a virtuous circle which should drive an increased standardization of practice, greater awareness and acceptance, further clarity of its role in regulatory decision making, and focused utilization within R&D strategies. Central in this interplay is the interaction between regulators and industry, both at the level of MIDD practitioners as well as multidisciplinary teams who need to understand and jointly align on the credibility of the application within the planned context of use. A significant aim going forward will be to increase the level of understanding and to align expectations among all stakeholders. In this regard, it is envisioned that this guideline will allow for more effective positioning and evaluation of evidence derived by MIDD approaches within the global multidisciplinary regulatory review process and associated regulatory decision making. Specifically, it is expected to provide guidance on the risk-based assessment of MIDD as supportive of, or primary evidence in, regulatory decision making. In accordance with ICH policy, the discussions and materials generated during the ICH M15 discussions are confidential prior to public consultation, which is planned for 2024. EWG members are looking forward to engaging with the MIDD community via our recognized regional scientific meetings, where we will present the Concept Paper, capture feedback, and engage in associated scientific discussions. As part of this process, we are pleased to offer this perspective on the steps to reach this point and our collective viewpoint on the scope as outlined in the Concept Paper. We are highly motivated by the significant milestone that an ICH MIDD guideline would represent in terms of enabling future practice in the context of global drug development and regulatory decision making. The authors thank Mohammed AlHarbi for his contribution to the ongoing discussions as part of the ICH M15 IWG/EWG. We would also like to thank the following discussion group members for their contribution during our discussion in developing the MIDD topic proposal and associated Road Map: Rubina Bose, Issam Zineh, Takayo Ueno, Ja-young Kim, Ming Zhou, Andrew Emmett, Amit Roy, Yaning Wang, and Omar Almazroo. Finally, we would like to thank Jen Moyers for Medical Writing support in development of this perspective. No funding was received for this work. The authors declared no competing interests for this work. This perspective represents the perspectives of the individual authors and does not represent the views of their institution or the ICH M15 EWG.

Abstract:The American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (ASCPT) 2019 Annual Meeting included two pre-conferences titled “PBPK (Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic) Modeling for the Development and Approval of Locally Acting Drug Products” and “Advancing QSP (Quantitative Systems Pharmacology) Toward Predictive Drug Development: From Targets to Treatments.” This special issue of CPT: Pharmacometrics and Systems Pharmacology is dedicated to the perspectives, short reviews, and original research articles provided by pre-conference speakers and organizers to inform the community at large of the current status of PBPK and QSP applications in pharmaceutical research and development. The full-day PBPK pre-conference was cosponsored by the ASCPT and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and cochaired by Liang Zhao, PhD, US FDA, and Ping Zhao, PhD, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It was designed to address the challenges associated with developing PBPK models for locally acting drug products and using them during drug development and demonstration of bioequivalence (BE). For locally acting drug products, measuring drug concentrations at the site of action in humans may not be feasible or ethical. As clinical efficacy and safety data serve as the pivotal information for new drug approval, pharmacodynamic or comparative clinical end-point BE study results can serve as surrogate measures to evaluate drug exposure equivalence for generic drugs. However, pharmacodynamic or comparative clinical end-point BE studies are costly and often are insensitive to formulation or dose differences, especially when the drug exposure and clinical response relationship is flat. PBPK models can help identify the potential correlation between systemic and local drug exposure and determine whether the shape of the systemic pharmacokinetic curve can be used as a surrogate measure of local drug exposure. This pre-conference covered the following three classes of locally acting drug products: orally inhaled and nasal drug products, topical dermatological drug products, and ophthalmic drug products. In addition, it had a dedicated session to discuss the method and implementation challenges with speakers and panelists from academia, industry, software developers, and regulatory agencies. This pre-conference offered a poster session on the latest PBPK modeling efforts in this area, which enhanced scientific communication and stimulated knowledge exchange among meeting attendees. The pre-conference achieved its objectives of demonstrating the critical role of PBPK as not only a viable data integration and analysis tool but also a common platform that allows a product developer to communicate with regulators in a quantitative manner. Participants also identified scientific gaps and new opportunity areas to enhance PBPK toolsets for each route of delivery discussed. The PBPK-related papers published in this special issue from the FDA reflect current practices and challenges in the field. Given the difficulties associated with establishing BE for orally inhaled drug products, the review examines the utility of different models in this space and discusses how model verification can be achieved1. In general, challenges to verify PBPK models stand for locally acting drug products given that the drug concentrations at the site of action are not easily measurable and systemic concentrations may not reflect drug delivery at the site of action or are not detectable. Considerations for model verification, including leveraging clinically relevant in vitro and/or in vivo data for the product or data from an array of products with relevant formulation properties and use conditions are discussed in a commentary.2 The utilization of QSP has increased following the 2011 publication of the seminal white paper on this topic.3 A recent survey by the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development4 (IQ Consortium) highlighted disparities and knowledge gaps between large and small pharmaceutical companies in the application of QSP approaches in pharmaceutical research and development. Recognition of the gaps and inconsistencies in QSP modeling practices among scientists galvanized academic, industry, and regulatory scientists to co-organize this meeting, which was cosponsored by the ASCPT, the IQ Consortium, the International Society of Pharmacometrics, and the FDA in collaboration with the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health (NIA-NIH). This full-day pre-conference focused on applications of QSP in drug discovery, development, and regulatory reviews. Through presentations and panel discussions, the objectives were to engage researchers and decision-makers across academia, industries, regulators, and funding agencies on the following: The QSP-related papers from the FDA, members of the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development, and the NIA-NIH published in this special issue reflect current practices and challenges in the field. We are encouraged to find that the number of regulatory QSP submissions has steadily increased every year during the past 7 years.5 Furthermore, the funding agencies are playing an important role in the development of broad QSP capabilities in the academic sector and in enabling multistakeholder partnerships. Implementation of the Comprehensive In-Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay initiative exemplifies a private-public partnership for the goal of advancing QSP in drug development.6 QSP has facilitated key decisions and transitions in drug discovery and development. Systems biology and systems pharmacology approaches of integrating big data across genetics, RNAs, transcription factors, proteomics, metabolomics, and chemicals (perturbagens) are the foundations for QSP. This aspect of QSP is increasingly being enabled by the NIH across many disease areas, including Alzheimer's disease, through large-scale team efforts, the development of new translational infrastructure, and the promotion of open science practices. Not unlike other modeling and simulation approaches,7 one key to advancing QSP success is the development of strategies to assess QSP models, thus quantitatively and deterministically linking a drug's mode of action in mechanistic detail but with minimal uncertainty in the context of human biology and drug interactions. Conducting virtual clinical trials with cohorts of virtual patients derived from QSP models has enabled applications of QSP to late-stage drug development, such as the development of immune-oncology combination therapy; however, several challenges remain. One challenge, for instance, is modeling placebo responses by way of parameterizing a virtual placebo group with a QSP model,8 whereas another challenge is reducing model uncertainty in the context of capturing complex human biology. Assessing QSP models in the context of use with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team may offer flexibility while increasing confidence in their predictive power.9 The stakeholders from pharmaceutical industry, the NIA-NIH, and the FDA, though appreciating the increasing utility of QSP in drug discovery and development, face the challenges of defining QSP best practices as well as qualifying and validating QSP models within an acceptable range of quantitative and statistical certainty. As described by contributing authors to this special issue, QSP has a role in drug discovery and development; however, these challenges must be overcome before routine integration into pharmaceutical research and development processes can be realized. The perspectives, reviews, and articles contained in this special issue of CPT: Pharmacometrics and Systems Pharmacology are representative of current opinions and the state of the art of PBPK and QSP in model-informed drug discovery and development and regulatory science. Although much progress has been made in each of these fields, many challenges and knowledge gaps remain to be addressed. However, we believe that through continuous open dialogues and scientific exchanges among stake holders, such as occurred at these two pre-conferences, we can come together to identify solutions to key challenges and find new opportunities to apply these approaches in drug discovery and development. The authors would like to thank moderators and presenters from multiple organizations and staff from the ASCPT, FDA, IQ Consortium, ISoP, and NIA-NIH for their contributions to the success of these two pre-conferences. No funding was received for this work. The authors declared no competing interests for this work. This article reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views or policies of the US Food and Drug Administration.

Model‐Informed Drug Development: Steps Toward Harmonized Guidance

Model‐Informed Drug Development: Current US Regulatory Practice and Future Considerations

Review: Role of Model-Informed Drug Development Approaches in the Lifecycle of Drug Development and Regulatory Decision-Making

Considerations for Industry—Preparing for the FDA Model‐Informed Drug Development (MIDD) Paired Meeting Program

Model-informed drug development in pediatric, pregnancy and geriatric drug development: States of the art and future

Application of MIDD to accelerate the development of anti-infectives: Current status and future perspectives

A Modern Curriculum for Training Scientists in Model-Informed Drug Development: Progress Report on FDA Grant to Train Regulatory Scientists

Consideration of a Credibility Assessment Framework in Model‐Informed Drug Development: Potential Application to Physiologically‐Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Simulation

Considerations from the IQ Induction Working Group in Response to Drug-Drug Interaction Guidance from Regulatory Agencies: Focus on Downregulation, CYP2C Induction, and CYP2B6 Positive Control

Dose Optimization Informed by PBPK Modeling: State‐of‐the Art and Future

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Approaches to Facilitate Therapeutic Drug Management and Model-Informed Precision Dosing

Application of Model‐Informed Drug Development in Dose Selection and Optimization for siRNA Therapies

American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2019 Annual Meeting Pre‐Conferences

[Pediatric drug development: ICH harmonized tripartite guideline E11 within the United States of America, the European Union, and Japan]

Asia‐inclusive drug development leveraging principles of ICH E5 and E17 guidelines: Case studies illustrating quantitative clinical pharmacology as a foundational enabler

Experience Learned and Perspectives on Using Model-Integrated Evidence in the Regulatory Context for Generic Drug Products—a Meeting Report

Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

2000-2023 over two decades of ICH S7A: has the time come for a revamp?

Addressing Drug–Drug Interaction Knowledge Gaps at the Time of Approval: An Analysis of FDA Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments from 2009 to 2023

Utility of Biomarker‐Informed Drug Interaction Evaluation in Drug Development and Regulatory Decision Making

Applications of Model-Based Meta-Analysis in Drug Development