Points to Consider when Planning the Collection of Blood or Tissue Samples in Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products in Children, Infants and Neonates

2010 ◽  
pp. 97-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel B. Hawcutt ◽  
Andrew C. Rose ◽  
Sabine Fuerst-Recktenwald ◽  
Tony Nunn ◽  
Mark A. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medicinal Products ◽  
Tissue Samples

scholarly journals Defining the Threshold of Permissible Risk for Non-therapeutic Clinical Trials with Children in Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-431
Author(s):  
Katherine Wade*
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Medicinal Products ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Therapeutic Trials ◽  
Research With Children ◽  
Individual Trial ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Trial Participants

Abstract It is important that clinical research with children is encouraged so that they are not exposed to the dangers of extrapolation from adult treatments. Clinical trials with investigational medicinal products (imps) are an important part of improving medical care for children. Both the 2001 Clinical Trials Directive and the 2014 Regulation recognise the need for such research, including the need for non-therapeutic trials with imps. However, it is also recognised that a balance must be struck between permitting tailored medical care for children as a group on the one hand, and protecting individual trial participants from harm on the other. A central issue in striking this balance relates to defining the threshold of risk which should be permitted in such research. This article provides a critical analysis of the current European law in relation to the definition of acceptable risk for non-therapeutic clinical trials with imps and makes recommendations for reform, drawing on law from the Council of Europe, as well as law from the us.

scholarly journals EMEA and Gene Therapy Medicinal Products Development in the European Union

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marisa Papaluca Amati ◽  
Francesco Pignatti ◽  
Alexis Nolte ◽  
Nirosha Amerasinghe ◽  
Daniel Gustafsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Therapy ◽  
European Union ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Evaluation Agency ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Medicinal Products ◽  
Regulatory Processes ◽  
National Competent Authorities ◽  
Practice Implementation

The evaluation of quality, safety, and efficacy of medicinal products by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) via the centralized procedure is the only available regulatory procedure for obtaining marketing authorization for gene therapy (GT) medicinal products in the European Union. The responsibility for the authorization of clinical trials remains with the national competent authorities (NCA) acting in a harmonized framework from the scientific viewpoint. With the entry into force of a new directive on good clinical practice implementation in clinical trials as of 1 May 2004, procedural aspects will also be harmonized at EU level. Scientifically sound development of medicinal products is the key for the successful registration of dossiers and for contributing to the promotion and protection of public health. The objective of this paper is to introduce the EMEA regulatory processes and scientific activities relevant to GT medicinal products.

The Proposed EU-regulation on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products: An Unethical Proposal?

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jilles Heringa ◽  
Joseph Dute
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Medicinal Products ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
Human Use ◽  
Proposed Regulation ◽  
High Level ◽  
Force Member

Abstract The Commission has proposed a regulation ‘on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use’ to introduce one regulatory framework for clinical trials in the European Union. This regulation should replace the current clinical trials directive (2001/20/EC). In this article we describe and critically review the main provisions of the proposed regulation. We assess the consequences for a sound authorisation procedure of clinical trials and the level of protection for human subjects. We note that the proposed regulation is inconsistent with applicable international legal documents, such as the Biomedicine Convention and the Declaration of Helsinki. We conclude that the proposed regulation does not ensure a “high level of human health protection” — required by its legal basis in the TFEU — because it may force Member States concerned to accept a reporting Member States’ approval of — in their estimation — an unethical clinical trial.

Collecting Blood and Tissue Samples in Paediatric Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
pp. 59-64
Author(s):  
Sabine Fürst-Recktenwald ◽  
Marianne Soergel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tissue Samples

Utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) versus tumor tissue clinical sequencing for enrolling patients (Pts) with advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancer to matched clinical trials: SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA Combined Analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Nakamura ◽  
Hiroya Taniguchi ◽  
Hideaki Bando ◽  
Ken Kato ◽  
Taito Esaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tumor Tissue ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Circulating Tumor Dna ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Combined Analysis ◽  
Clinical Sequencing ◽  
Gi Cancer

5 Background: Blood-based genomic profiling by ctDNA analysis has a promise to potentially identify actionable genomic alterations. However, utility of clinical sequencing with ctDNA compared with that with tumor tissue for enrolling cancer pts to matched clinical trials remains unclear. Herein we investigated the utility of ctDNA clinical sequencing by the SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA Combined Analysis. Methods: In the GI-SCREEN, tumor tissue samples of pts with advanced GI cancer were analyzed by a next generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay, Oncomine Comprehensive Assay since Feb 2015. In the GOZILA, plasma samples of pts with advanced GI cancer were analyzed by an NGS-based ctDNA assay, Guardant360 since Feb 2018. Tests were performed centrally by CLIA-certified and CAP-accredited laboratories. Pts with actionable alterations were enrolled to matched company-sponsored or investigator-initiated clinical trials. Results: As of Apr 2019, test results were generated in 5,029 out of 5,743 pts (88%) in GI-SCREEN and 1,089 out of 1,103 pts (99%) in GOZILA ( P < 0.0001).Median turnaround time (TAT) was 35 days in GI-SCREEN and 12 days in GOZILA ( P < 0.0001). There were no differences in other baseline characteristics between GI-SCREEN and GOZILA. Proportion of enrolling matched clinical trials in GOZILA was significantly higher than that in GI-SCREEN (126 pts [2.2%] in GI-SCREEN vs. 60 pts [5.4%] in GOZILA, P < 0.0001). Median time from GI-SCREEN or GOZILA enrollment to clinical trial enrollment was 5.9 and 1.0 months (mo), respectively ( P < 0.0001). The objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not significantly different (ORR: 17.5 vs. 16.7%, P = 1.00; median PFS: 2.8 vs. 2.0 mo, P = 0.24). Conclusions: Clinical sequencing with ctDNA having the advantage of the shorter TAT enrolled more pts with advanced GI cancer to matched clinical trials than those with tumor tissue, without compromising the efficacy. Clinical trial information: UMIN000029315.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document