Based on recent regulatory changes at the state and local level and the efforts by the federal government and certain foreign agencies, investors, clinical trial sponsors, life sciences companies, and investigators operating in the psychedelics industry may have reason to be optimistic about the future regulatory landscape for therapeutic psychedelic product candidate development, approval, and commercialization. The proposed Breakthrough Therapies Act is one such reason.

On March 8, 2023, US Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced an updated version of the Breakthrough Therapies Act. If passed, the bipartisan bill would amend the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to enable the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reclassify from Schedule I to Schedule II drugs and biologics, including therapeutic psychedelics, that receive breakthrough therapy designation or are authorized for expanded access by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Therapeutic psychedelics are Schedule I substances and include LSD, MDMA, and psilocybin. According to the bill’s sponsors, the “legislation [would] remove regulatory hurdles that inhibit research and compassionate use access to potentially lifesaving treatments that are heavily restricted by Schedule I of the [CSA].”

The bipartisan effort behind the Breakthrough Therapies Act signals the federal government’s evolving position on psychedelic substances, their therapeutic potential, and access. This evolution, discussed in greater detail in our Client Alert, presents an important opportunity for investors, clinical trial sponsors, life sciences companies, and investigators.

Accordingly, we have identified and answered 8 key questions that stakeholders should consider as they develop and innovate in the psychedelic space:

• What Is the Difference Between a Schedule I and a Schedule II Drug?
• What Diseases and Conditions Can Potentially Benefit From Therapeutic Psychedelics?
• What Are the Key Provisions of the Proposed Breakthrough Therapies Act?
• How Does a Drug or Biologic Obtain Breakthrough Therapy Designation From FDA?
• What Is Expanded Access?
• What Are Some Key Limitations in the Proposed Breakthrough Therapies Act?
• What Is the Status of Therapeutic Psychedelics at the State and Local Level?
• What Regulatory Changes Are on the Horizon for Therapeutic Psychedelics?

Read the full client alert here.

On May 2, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published draft guidance titled “Decentralized Clinical Trials for Drugs, Biological Products, and Devices” (the “Draft Guidance”). The Draft Guidance expands on the FDA’s 2020 recommendations issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its 2021 draft guidance on the use of digital health technologies (“DHTs”) in clinical trials, and fulfills the directive under Section 3606 of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act to “issue or revise draft guidance [ ] to clarify and advance the use of decentralized clinical studies to support the development of drugs and devices” no later than December 29, 2023.

The Draft Guidance defines a decentralized clinical trial (“DCT”) as a clinical trial where some or all of the trial-related activities occur at locations other than traditional trial sites.  The FDA clarifies that its regulatory requirements for clinical investigations are the same for DCTs as for traditional clinical trials; however, the Draft Guidance outlines how clinical trial sponsors, investigators, and other stakeholders may meet these requirements in the context of DCTs given the FDA’s recognition of the significant potential benefits of DCTs, such as expanding access to clinical trials, increasing trial efficiency, and improving trial participant engagement, recruitment, enrollment, retention, and diversity.

Some of FDA’s key recommendations include:

• An important initial determination is whether it is appropriate for a particular trial to be conducted as a fully decentralized or hybrid DCT. Whereas a fully decentralized trial may be appropriate for an investigational product (“IP”) that is simple to administer, has a well-characterized safety profile, and does not require complex medical assessments, a hybrid approach may be more appropriate where the trial involves more complex medical assessments or supervision and monitoring of IP administration. The FDA recommends that questions related to the feasibility, design, implementation, or analysis of a DCT should be discussed early with the relevant FDA review division.
• Given that trial-related activities for a DCT may involve a network of locations where clinical trial personnel, local health care providers (“HCPs”), and trial-related services (e.g., labs) may be provided, for inspectional purposes the investigator should select a physical location, to be listed on Form FDA 1572 – Statement of Investigator or in the investigational device exemption (“IDE”) application, where trial participant records will be stored and where trial personnel may be interviewed.
• Both sponsor and investigator should evaluate whether certain trial-related activities may be delegated to DCT personnel located near participants’ homes. Such activities should not require detailed knowledge of the protocol or IP. Trial-related activities that are unique to the trial or require detailed knowledge of the trial protocol or the IP should be performed by qualified trial personnel who have been appropriately trained.
• Obtaining informed consent remotely may be appropriate for a DCT as long as the process is adequate and appropriate. Oversight by institutional review boards (“IRBs”) should ensure that electronic informed consent at remote locations meets applicable requirements, and the FDA recommends the use of a central IRB in DCTs to provide for more streamlined review of the informed consent documents as well the protocol and other trial-related documents.
• As with any trial, sponsors must ensure proper monitoring of DCTs based on the sponsor’s risk assessment. Sponsors should also implement a safety monitoring plan that accounts for the decentralized nature of the clinical trial, including by prespecifying whether safety data will be collected via telehealth or in-person visits and whether DHTs will be used to collect certain safety information.  The Draft Guidance underscores the importance of providing sufficient instruction and contact information to the trial participant should an adverse event occur and allowing the participant to arrange an unscheduled visit (either remotely or in-person), as appropriate. The FDA also recently finalized its Q&A guidance on risk-based monitoring of clinical investigations, which we blogged about here.
• FDA notes that the “variability and precision” of data obtained from a DCT may differ from data obtained in a traditional site-based clinical trial. For example, remote assessments may vary from on-site assessments, particularly if trial participants are performing their own assessments at home.  Similarly, assessments performed by local HCPs may be less precise and consistent than assessments conducted by on-site trial personnel.  FDA states that while such variability may not affect the validity of a finding of superiority, it could compromise a finding of non-inferiority relative to an active control drug that has been evaluated in a traditional site-based trial.  FDA therefore recommends that sponsors consult with the relevant review division if planning a DCT with a non-inferiority design.
• For telehealth visits during a DCT, investigators should confirm a participant’s identity during each visit and complete the relevant case report forms and other documentation for each visit. Additionally, the sponsor and investigator are responsible for ensuring that remote clinical trial visits comply with relevant state telehealth laws and as applicable, the telehealth laws of countries outside the U.S.
• Given multiple sources of data collection in a DCT, the sponsor should develop a data management plan that includes the data origin and data flow from all sources to the sponsor; methods for acquiring remote data from trial participants and personnel; and a list of vendors for data collection, handling, and management.

The Draft Guidance demonstrates the FDA’s support of more widespread use of DCTs. At the same time, the Agency acknowledges that DCTs can be challenging to implement successfully, including because DCTs require coordination of trial activities with numerous parties in multiple locations that are not traditional trial sites.  The Draft Guidance also notes that if significant safety risks emerge due to remote administration or use of an IP, or if other circumstances arise that warrant in-person visits, the sponsor should discontinue remote administration or use of the IP, inform the FDA, IRB, and investigators, and determine whether the trial should be amended or continue.

Interested stakeholders may submit comments on the Draft Guidance by August 1, 2023 to Docket FDA-2022-D-2870.

Contact the authors or another Goodwin FDA team member with any questions or if you would like to submit comments to the FDA on the Draft Guidance.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently issued its draft guidance entitled “Marketing Submission Recommendations for a Predetermined Change Control Plan for Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Enabled Device Software Functions.” The draft guidance follows the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), which explicitly authorized the Agency to approve or clear Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCPs).

We summarize some of the key takeaways from FDA’s draft guidance.  Read the client alert here.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently finalized its guidance, “A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring of Clinical Investigations” (the “2023 RBM Guidance”) which follows up on the Agency’s March 2019 draft guidance (the “Draft Guidance”) of the same name and expands on (but does not supersede) the FDA’s August 2013 guidance, “Oversight of Clinical Investigations – A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring” (the “2013 RBM Guidance”), with new recommendations summarized below to aid sponsors in implementing an effective and efficient risk-based approach to monitoring both risks to participants and to data integrity throughout all stages of clinical investigations of human drug and biological products, medical devices, and combination products.

(1) Approach: Identify, assess and re-assess risks. Create a plan to manage, mitigate, and/or eliminate those risks, including those risks that are newly identified or may not have been anticipated.

• Risk assessments should inform clinical trial protocol design, investigational plans, and monitoring plans and should be reevaluated and revised throughout the investigation. The monitoring plan should be comprehensive in highlighting identified risks, even those less likely to occur but that could have a significant impact on trial quality or subject safety, and should note how risks will be managed, mitigated, or eliminated.
• Consider how easily detectable the identified risks are, and the severity and consequences of those risks to human subject welfare and data quality if not detected and addressed.
• Assess systemic risks, as well as site-specific risks, and consider whether site-specific risks have the potential to become systemic risks.
• Determine an approach to on-site monitoring visits by taking into account the risks identified and the complexity and intensity of a clinical investigation. Monitoring activities should evolve based on risks identified during trials and should be proportionate to the risks to participants’ rights or safety or to data integrity.
• Implement a centralized monitoring approach to help minimize missing data and protocol deviations in real-time, such as through the use of electronic data capture systems.
• The risk assessment should guide how and to what extent source data verification (SDV) will be utilized during on-site monitoring visits.
• Establish processes to ensure appropriate blinding is maintained. Identify and monitor deviations which could result in unintentional unblinding.
• Be prepared during an FDA inspection to furnish documentation of the sponsor’s initial risk assessment, if requested.

(2) Content: Components of the monitoring plan should help explain how the sponsor intends to address the risks that could affect the investigation.

• Include the following components (in addition to those recommended in the 2013 RBM Guidance) in the monitoring plan:
  • Overall investigation design, including blinding and randomization procedures and processes for confirming randomization is performed according to the protocol and investigational plan
  • Sample plan(s), including rationale for, and approach to, identifying the records and data that will be monitored
  • Description of particular issues that would trigger immediate escalation
  • Approach for assessing and addressing a site issue that could escalate into a systemic issue that may warrant protocol or investigation plan changes
• Reference other clinical investigation management plans in the monitoring plan rather than repeating the information in the current monitoring plan to avoid inconsistencies.

(3) Communicate: Promptly address and communicate monitoring results to the appropriate parties to mitigate and eliminate risk.

• Perform monitoring in accordance with the pre-established monitoring plan and address issues as the monitor identifies them, including escalation, if needed.
• Perform a root-cause analysis of issues and promptly implement corrective and preventive actions (CAPAs).
• Consider amendments or revisions to the protocol or the investigational plan.
• Communicate and document significant issues to the relevant parties involved at the sponsor and site level, which may also include institutional review boards, data monitoring committees, and/or regulatory agencies, such as the FDA.
• Provide reports of monitoring activities in a timely manner to the site and discuss the findings with the clinical investigator and site staff. Reports should follow the 2013 RBM Guidance.

While the FDA’s regulations require sponsors to monitor the conduct and progress of their clinical investigations, there are no specifics on how sponsors are to conduct such monitoring. FDA’s guidance provides helpful direction on clinical trial monitoring while recognizing that a monitoring approach should evolve over the course of a trial as risk assessments evolve. Sponsors with upcoming or ongoing clinical trials should consider FDA’s recommendations in monitoring plan development and execution of monitoring activities throughout a trial.

On March 24, 2023, the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health announced the issuance of two much anticipated final guidances that describe the Agency’s transition plans for medical devices that fall within certain COVID-19 enforcement policies or that were issued emergency use authorizations (“EUA”s):

• Transition Plan for Medical Devices That Fall Within Enforcement Policies Issued During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency (the “Enforcement Policies Final Guidance”)

• Transition Plan for Medical Devices Issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (the “EUA Transition Final Guidance”)

The guidances follow the announcement in early 2023 that the Biden Administration plans to wind-down a number of pandemic-related programs and to allow the COVID-19 public health emergency (“PHE”) declaration, which has been in effect since January 2020, to expire on May 11, 2023.

We summarize some of the key takeaways from FDA’s finalized transition plans.  Read the client alert here.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued General Considerations for Animal Studies Intended to Evaluate Medical Devices – Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (fda.gov). Following a 2015 draft guidance and replacing a 2010 guidance focused on animal studies for cardiovascular devices, this guidance document identifies general considerations for animal studies intended to provide evidence of safety, including performance and handling, in device premarket submissions “when a suitable alternative to an animal study is not available.” Among other topics, the guidance provides recommendations related to personnel credentials, selecting an appropriate animal model, testing facility selection, and how to prepare an animal study report for premarket submissions to FDA. The Agency encourages sponsors with specific questions on an animal study, including the animal model selected, or compliance with FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) regulations, or who seek to use a non-animal testing method, to request feedback from FDA through the Q-Submission process.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has issued more than eighty (80) guidance documents describing flexibilities that would be available to manufacturers of medical devices, drugs and biological products, and foods during the public health emergency.  Several of these guidance documents have been modified, updated, or withdrawn as circumstances have changed, and on March 13, 2023, the FDA issued a notice in the Federal Register that outlines how it intends to unwind a large swath of COVID-19-related guidance documents that are still in effect.  FDA sorted seventy-two (72) COVID-19-related guidances into several categories, based on how long and in what form they will continue to be in effect after the expiration of the public health emergency declaration, which is expected on May 11, 2023.

Read the client alert here.

Investigators interested in rare disease treatment development have the opportunity to approach drug and biologic developers to obtain investigational drug supply for trials in which the investigators, typically at academic institutions, act as sponsor-investigators. Similarly, companies open to extending their product development pipelines can look to investigator-initiated trials as a mechanism to better understand the overall safety profile for their product candidates while exploring the potential therapeutic utility of their product candidates in diseases where unmet medical needs remain. So often, those needs exist in rare diseases where populations are small and investment returns are difficult to project. Drug developers deciding whether to supply investigational products to sponsor-investigators looking to explore therapeutic potential in areas of their research interests should evaluate what level of involvement to exercise over the investigator-initiated trial. We highlight some of these considerations below.

Ultimately, drug developers hold the decision-making power over whether to allow investigator-initiated research for their product candidates. Thereafter, the contracting process around the setup of an investigator-initiated trial and clinical supply agreement provides drug developers the opportunity to negotiate their level of involvement in the research of their candidates. In negotiating the setup of investigator-initiated research supply, drug developers often balance their support of research into what are often unmet needs with limited company resources, limited supply that may be available and any potential risks that may flow from trial learnings in the proposed disease space. As an upside, investigator-initiated trials afford developers the opportunity to extend their research reach and product development pipelines, so any interest by investigators to conduct research with industry candidates warrants consideration.

For sponsors utilizing a data monitoring committee in their trial designs to monitor for emerging safety signals, lack of effect, and/or futility of treatment, understanding data monitoring committee conflict of interest limitations is important to ensuring an objective view of the data from a trial.  Where we see these conflict of interest considerations put to the test most often is in rare disease trials where the available pool of informed experts can be just as small as the patient populations under study. As explained in FDA’s final guidance for industry on this topic, core considerations for avoiding potential conflicts of interest in data monitoring committee member selection include:

• Financial interests. Here, careful consideration must be given to whether any prospective committee member holds ownership interests in the sponsor entity or stands in a position to benefit financially from the outcome of the trial. This can include equity or stock interests, employee or temporary employee status, paid consulting or advisory board relationships with the sponsor, prior research funding from an institution involved in the study, whose product is being evaluated in the study or competes with a product being evaluated in the study, among other things. FDA generally recommends against appointing any committee members with ongoing financial relationships to the trial’s sponsor.
• Other roles in the trial. Those individuals entering subjects into and conducting a trial stand in a considerable conflict position given their knowledge of interim data emerging from subjects at their trial site which could influence the recruitment or monitoring trends of those individuals for the trial. As such, FDA generally recommends against appointing any committee member who is serving as an investigator in the trial the data monitoring committee would oversee. Additionally, FDA disfavors appointment of any members that have had input into the design of the trial or are involved in the conduct of the trial in any other role for similar reasons.
• Intellectual conflicts. Perhaps most challenging to evaluate and navigate in rare disease trials is the risk to objectivity that strongly held views of prospective data monitoring committee members could play in their ability to review the data in a fully objective manner. This could include prospective committee members with strong views on the relative merits of the intervention under study vs. others under development. Additionally, FDA recommends against appointing committee members with strong relationships to or personal differences with trial investigators or to sponsor employees which are likely to cloud their objectivity.

FDA recognizes the tension that sponsors must navigate between placing a high value on independence and avoidance of conflicts of interest in the composition of its data monitoring committees, on the one hand, and understanding the importance of a well-informed data monitoring committee to the effective oversight of emerging data from a trial, on the other. While there is no one-size-fits all approach, data monitoring committee charters and sponsor conflict of interest policies can be helpful in this regard to establish and document the sponsor’s limitations on engagement and interaction with the committee and vice versa. The more interconnected the sponsor-developer and investigator communities become, the more challenging it may become for sponsors, particularly those in the rare disease space, to ensure the objectivity of its data monitoring committees.

The legislation previously introduced as the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act of 2022 (“PIE Act”) was passed as part of Congress’s December 23, 2022 omnibus spending bill. Once signed into law, this legislation will amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s (FDCA’s) provisions on misbranded drugs and devices to formally allow drug and medical device manufacturers to proactively share investigational drug and device information, including health care economic information, with payors, health plans, formulary committees, and other similar entities prior to the clearance or approval of the drug or device or new use of the drug or device but with now-statutory strings attached.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long had the authority to enforce against pre-approval promotional communications, and a pathway for pre-approval communication of health care economic information regarding the selection of drugs for coverage and reimbursement was enacted under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. Current guidance from FDA, finalized in 2018, expressly permits drug and device companies to provide some details about investigational products or investigational uses of marketed products to payors, formulary committees, and similar entities prior to approval or clearance of the product or its new use; however, for device companies this has come in the form of non-binding guidance that lacks a formal anchor in the statutory language. The inclusion of the legislation previously known as the PIE Act in the omnibus spending bill formally establishes a statutory pathway built on FDA’s 2018 final guidance for both drug and medical device companies to engage in pre-market communications about health care economic information with payors, formulary committees, and similar entities.

Read the client alert here.