Regulatory agencies in different parts of the world may have different requirements for end-points, which significantly affects the design and conduct of registrational multiregional clinical trials (MRCT). In particular, different health authorities may request or require different endpoints as primary or key secondary hypotheses in phase 3 MRCTs. In addition, differences between regions may involve the time point considered primary, patient populations analyzed, study design, or noninferiority margins.
No guidance exists on how pharmaceutical companies should handle such regional differences, and harmonized guidance across regions would be useful. Initial steps in any global program should involve attempts to reach consistency in an MRCT. We review scenarios involving different health authority requirements for endpoints and other study design features and recommend approaches to handling differing health authority requirements within a global program, when a consistent global approach is not acceptable to all regulatory authorities.
DiMasiJA. The value of improving productivity of the drug development process—faster times and better decisions. PharmacoEconomics. 2002:20 (suppl 3):1–10.
4.
International Conference on Harmonization. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Ethnic factors in the acceptability of foreign clinical data E5(R1). 1998. http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA481.pdf.
Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Concept paper on the need for revision of the points to consider on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the chronic treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). CPMP/EWP/562/98. February 2009.
12.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: developing drugs for treatment (draft guidance). US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. November 2007.
13.
Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Note for guidance on the clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of urinary incontinence. December 2002.
14.
LipickyR. An FDA perspective on antiarrhythmic drugs in phase II trials. Am Heart J. 2000; 139(4):S197–S199.
EllenbergSSTempleR. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments—part 2: Practical issues and specific cases. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:464–470.
19.
International Conference on Harmonization. Choice of control group and related design and conduct issues in clinical trials (ICH E-10). Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. July 2000.
20.
PetersonPCarrollKChuang-SteinCPISC Expert Team White Paper. Toward a consistent standard of evidence when evaluating the efficacy of an experimental treatment from a randomized, active controlled trial. Stat Biopharm Res. (in press).
21.
Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Non-inferiority clinical trials (draft). March 2010.
22.
Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. Stat Med. 2006;25:1628–1638.
CooperDZajdenvergRRuxrungthamKChavezL. Efficacy and safety of two doses of tipranavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir-based therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients: results of BI 1182.33. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection, Glasgow, 2006.
26.
LennoxJLDeJesusELazzarinA, for the STARTMRK investigators. Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: A multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374: 796–806.
27.
SquiresKLazzarinAGatellJComparison of once-daily atazanavir with efavirenz, each in combination with fixed-dose zidovudine and lamivudine, as initial therapy for patients infected with HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;36: 1011–1019.
Rocket AF Study Investigators. Rivaroxaban—once daily, oral, direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation: Rationale and design of the ROCKET AF Study. Am Heart J. 2010;159(3):340–347.
