Download Dr. Hart

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Perspectives on Licensing
Vaccines by the Animal Rule
Mary Kate Hart, Ph.D.
Director, Nonclinical Research
DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, A CSC Company
1
Overview
• Vaccine development by DynPort Vaccine Company LLC (DVC):
perspectives and considerations
• The Animal Rule: what it is and what it is not
• DVC’s approach to meeting the Animal Rule requirements
Proprietary
2
Vaccine Development by DVC:
Perspectives and Considerations
Proprietary
3
Bona fides
• DVC has been engaged in advanced development of
biodefense products since 1998.
• Product portfolio includes:
– Live bacterial vaccine (tularemia)
– Live viral vaccines (Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus; Cell
Culture Smallpox Vaccine)
– Inactivated viral vaccines (seasonal and pandemic influenza with
Baxter)
– Recombinant peptide vaccines (plague, anthrax, botulinum
neurotoxin)
– Plasma-derived biotherapeutics (BioScavenger with Baxter)
– Therapeutic immunoglobulin (Vaccinia immune globulin)
• Customers include Department of Defense, National Institutes
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Department of Health
and Human Services
• Licensed one of the first biodefense-specific products
Proprietary
4
Perspectives on Biodefense Vaccines
• Developing vaccines for biodefense
– What are we building?
– What are the customer’s requirements?
– What are the risks?
Proprietary
5
What are we building?
• The most important criterion: build with the end in sight.
– Proof-of-Concept does not ensure a viable product.
• Product developers need clear requirements:
– What is an acceptable level of protection?
– What is the final indication?
– What is the final format expected to be? (Single-dose, multi-dose,
filled syringes, something else?)
– What is a “licensable” product?
• Product plan should not radically change over time:
– Product development plans must be flexible, but cannot be
anarchistic. Government customer may require forward planning
(4-5 years) to ensure funding is available.
– Animal Rule provides many daunting challenges, and approach to
compliance should be set early.
Proprietary
6
What are the requirements?
• We need to know:
• Because:
– Nature and identity of threat
– Level of protection required
– Onset vs. duration of protection
– Administration strategy
– Storage conditions
– Initial delivery amount
– Ongoing requirements
– Regulatory strategy
– Specificity of the response
– Nonclinical and clinical study design
– Administration and testing paradigm
– Clinical strategy
– Formulation, stability and format
– Manufacturing strategy
– Manufacturing strategy
– Overall program design (licensed vs.
unlicensed)
Deviations from the plan always result in significant cost and
schedule ramifications. A clear plan for development of the product is
necessary in advance, and modifications should be made only when
absolutely necessary.
Proprietary
7
Risk Management is Crucial to Success
• Murphy’s Law is first, last and always the operating
principle.
• Development of biodefense medical countermeasures is
inherently a high-risk enterprise:
– Lack of prior art (make it up as you go).
– Compliance with the Animal Rule: new licensure strategy.
– The product may not work as expected.
– Logistics of countermeasure use still being worked out.
Proprietary
8
The Animal Rule:
What it is and What it is Not
Proprietary
9
FDA Animal Rule
• Allows for approval of vaccines in which efficacy testing in humans
is unethical
• Is not a shortcut to approval, or applicable to products that can be
licensed by other approaches
• Need to understand pathophysiology of the disease
• Use dosages scaled to reproduce the human response
• Well-controlled animal studies will provide data that are likely to
predict a benefit in humans
• Demonstrate effect in two species
– nonhuman primates [NHPs]
– Rodents
• Additional considerations available in Concept Paper (e.g., use of
well-characterized materials)
Proprietary
10
Animal Rule Challenges
• Meet the traditional licensure requirements AND
• Design proof-of-concept studies
– Demonstrate relevance of animal model
• Model considerations; small and large animal models desired
– Provide rationale for use of Animal Rule
– Define protection
– Good Documentation Practices essential
• Design of Animal Rule studies
– Determine correlate that predicts clinical benefit
– Support selection of human dosage
– Good Laboratory Practices required
– Efficacy demonstrated in animals
– Bridge from animals to human response to predict clinical benefit
Proprietary
11
Development Timeline – Traditional Approach
IND
R&D
PreClinical
BLA
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
FDA
Approval
To the
Market
Clinical Studies
YEARS 6.5
7
1.5
TOTAL: 15 years
Proprietary
12
Development Timeline – Animal Rule Approach
IND
R&D
PreClinical
BLA
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Animal Rule – Efficacy Studies
To the
FDA
Approval Market
TOTAL: Unknown
Proprietary
13
Animal Rule-Based Vaccine Development
• Pathway to Licensure is a “work in progress”
– Uncertain requirements from a regulatory standpoint
– Conservative approaches in determining what is acceptable
• There are NO licensed vaccines that demonstrate efficacy
by the Animal Rule
• Detailed planning essential due to government funding
restrictions
– Changes in protocols affect schedule/cost and can result in
major delays
– NHP availability
– Facility expertise and availability
Proprietary
14
DVC’s Approach to Meeting the
Animal Rule Requirements
Proprietary
15
DVC Vaccine Program Technical Approach
• Expertise and coordination between technical areas:
– Science: technical oversight and integration
– Quality: oversight of product and clinical studies
– Regulatory: FDA communications, strategy for licensure
– Manufacturing: material for clinical and nonclinical studies
– Nonclinical: animal studies (safety, immunogenicity, efficacy)
– Clinical: Phase 1,2,3 safety and immunogenicity trials
Proprietary
16
Balance: Manufacturing Development,
Animal Model Development and the Human Response
Justify why human
trials are not feasible or
ethical; justify
appropriateness of
selected animal models
CGMP
Demonstrate manufacturing
consistency – effective change
control
Correlate of Protective Immunity
GDP/
GLP
Bridge to human response; support
selection of human effective dose
Proprietary
GCP
17
DVC Program Technical Approach
•
•
•
•
Science: technical oversight and integration
Quality: oversight of product and clinical studies
Regulatory: FDA communications, strategy for licensure
Manufacturing: material for clinical and nonclinical
studies
• Nonclinical: animal studies (safety, immunogenicity,
efficacy)
• Clinical: Phase 1,2,3 safety and immunogenicity trials
Proprietary
18
Regulatory FDA Interactions
• Pre-IND meeting
• IND submitted with all development plans included
• Type C meetings
– Discussion of aspects of technical development plan
• Study designs provided for comment prior to conducting the study
• Timing of interactions is critical:
– Too soon: insufficient detail to receive specific comments
– Too late: cost and schedule impacts due to FDA comments
Proprietary
19
FDA Communication
• Close FDA communication is vital; no vaccine has yet been licensed
under the Animal Rule
– Workshops
– Working groups
– Formal meetings
– Review of strategy
– Review of study protocols
Proprietary
20
DVC Program Technical Approach
•
•
•
•
Science: technical oversight and integration
Quality: oversight of product and clinical studies
Regulatory: FDA communications, strategy for licensure
Manufacturing: material for clinical and nonclinical
studies
• Nonclinical: animal studies (safety, immunogenicity,
efficacy)
• Clinical: Phase 1,2,3 safety and immunogenicity trials
Proprietary
21
Development of a Manufacturing Process
Phase 1
Emphasis on Safety
Phase 2
Scientific Evaluation
Phase 3
Control and Validation
– Source characterization
– Raw materials traced and
qualified
– Characterization of
purified bulk and FDP
– Testing /clearance of
Impurities
– Description of
manufacturing
– Assay development
– Formulation
– Quality
– Purified bulk and FDP
characterization
– Assay development
– Increased stability
– Continued formulation
development
– Product
characterization
– Change Control
– Reference standard
– Quality
– Process optimized
– Process and assay
Validation
– Specifications
– Consistency Lot
production
– Quality
Proprietary
22
DVC Program Technical Approach
•
•
•
•
•
•
Science: technical oversight and integration
Quality: oversight of product and clinical studies
Regulatory: FDA communications, strategy for licensure
Manufacturing: material for clinical and nonclinical studies
Nonclinical: animal studies (safety, immunogenicity, efficacy)
Clinical: Phase 1,2,3 safety and immunogenicity trials
Proprietary
23
Critical Issues
• What is the intended label indication?
• How does disease in the animal model compare to human
disease? Are sufficient hallmarks covered?
• Demonstrating correlate of protective immunity in animals,
including humans
– Is the mechanism of protection clearly defined?
• Are functional in vitro assays available?
• Is the challenge material characterized and have the route
and dosage been determined?
• Breakthrough of protection?
• How is protection defined?
• Are there multiple subtypes to consider?
• Statistical considerations?
• May need multiple animal models to satisfy Animal Rule
requirements
Proprietary
24
Nonclinical Strategy for Vaccines
• Demonstrate Safety (Tox studies)
• Model selection: Animal studies must demonstrate that the
vaccine is likely to clinically benefit humans.
– Enable selection of a protective dosage for humans.
• Identify a marker of immunity that predicts protection and can
be measured in both animals and humans.
– Mechanism of protection: is it known?
• Pivotal animal studies
– Demonstrate efficacy
– Bridge immune responses to human immune responses
Proprietary
25
Considerations for Animal Model Selection
• Species
– Susceptibility to pathogen by the route of exposure intended for the
label indication
• Similarity to human response
– Display similar characteristics to human disease and pathogenesis
– Immune response
•
•
•
•
•
Endpoints of study
Manipulations required
Cost
Facility space and required biosafety containment level
Availability of sufficient animals
Proprietary
26
Development of Animal Models
PreClinical
Phase 1
Phase 2
Emphasis on development Scientific evaluation,
prevalidation studies
• The studies often use
research-grade products • FDA communication on
animal model design
• Proof-of-concept studies
• Animal studies to
• Develop and present a
support design of
regulatory strategy
pivotal studies
Phase 3
Control and validation
• Facility, process and
assay validation
complete
• Demonstrate efficacy
in animal models
(GLP)
• Nonclinical safety studies • Change control (how do • Collect supportive
manufacturing changes data from clinical
affect product
study
performance in animal
models)
• Reproductive toxicity
Proprietary
27
Proof-of-Concept Studies
• Good Documentation Practices
• Identification and development of relevant animal models
– Preferably more than one animal species
– Animal study endpoint is clearly related to the desired benefit in humans
•
•
•
•
Route of administration
Adjuvant requirement
Formulation optimization
Dose and schedule requirements
– Animal data supports effective dose in humans
• Immunological Response
– Development of assays to detect response
Proprietary
28
Addressing the Requirements
Animal Rule Requirements
Study Design
Understand the disease
• Lethal dose for 50% of animals (LD50);
natural history (pathophysiology)
Demonstrate efficacy in more than one
species which react as humans would with
similar endpoint (e.g., survival)
• Test article administration combined with
an active challenge
• Evaluate immune response
• Establish assay to be used as correlate
• Breakthrough of protection
Select effective human dosage
• Establish vaccination regimen that
induces immune response similar to that
observed in the clinic. Demonstrate
efficacy in challenge study
• Evaluate dosage in clinical trials
Proprietary
29
Bridging the Immune Response – Vaccine Example
Clinical Study
Efficacy Study
Human Sample
NHP Sample
Immunology Assay
Proprietary
30
DVC Program Technical Approach
•
•
•
•
•
•
Science: technical oversight and integration
Quality: oversight of product and clinical studies
Regulatory: FDA communications, strategy for licensure
Manufacturing: material for clinical and nonclinical studies
Nonclinical: animal studies (safety, immunogenicity, efficacy)
Clinical: Phase 1,2,3 safety and immunogenicity trials
Proprietary
31
DVC Clinical Efforts
IND
R&D
PreClinical
BLA
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Animal Rule – Efficacy Studies
Proprietary
To the
FDA
Approval Market
32
Conclusions
• The Animal Rule is a last-resort approach to vaccine
licensure, with unique challenges and no exceptions to the
licensure requirements under other regulations.
• The challenges may be met with careful planning and
coordination of technical activities.
• No vaccines have been licensed to date using this new
regulatory approach. This adds risk to a program.
• Licensure under the Animal Rule will increase the
program’s cost and likely extend the time to licensure.
• FDA communication is essential for success.
Proprietary
33
Acknowledgments
• Chemical Biological Medical System-Joint Vaccine
Acquisition Program (CBMS-JVAP), Department of Defense
(DoD) Contract DAMD 17-98-C-8024
• National Institute Of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and
Human Services, Contract No. N01-AI-50041
Proprietary
34