Model‐Informed Drug Development: Steps Toward Harmonized Guidance
Scott Marshall,Malidi Ahamadi,Jenny Y. Chien,Daisuke Iwata,Pavel Farkas,Augusto Filipe,Nicolas Frey,E. Greene,Norisuke Kawai,Jian Li,Joerg Lippert,Flora Musuamba Tshinanu,Efthymios Manolis,Mark Peterson,Sarem,Mohamad Shebley,Million A. Tegenge,Cheng‐Ho Tsai,Chien‐Lung Tu,Yasuto Otsubo,Jiawei Wei,Lucia Zhang,Hao Zhu,Kristin Karlsson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3006
2023-01-01
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.