Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31068811›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2019

The New First-in-Human EMA Guideline: Disruptive or Constructive? Outcomes From the First EUFEMED Discussion Forum.

Kerstin Breithaupt-Grögler, Tim Hardman, Jan de Hoon, Yves Donazzolo, Sylvie Rottey, Hildegard Sourgens, Steffan Stringer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kerstin Breithaupt-GröglerAssociation for Applied Human Pharmacology, Hamburg, Germany.
Tim HardmanAssociation for Human Pharmacology in the Pharmaceutical Industry, London, United Kingdom.
Jan de HoonBelgian Association of Phase-1 Units, Brussels, Belgium.
Yves DonazzoloAssociation Francaise de Pharmacologie Translationnelle (Formally Le Club Phase 1), Lyon, France.
Sylvie RotteyBelgian Association of Phase-1 Units, Brussels, Belgium.
Hildegard SourgensAssociation for Applied Human Pharmacology, Hamburg, Germany.
Steffan StringerAssociation for Human Pharmacology in the Pharmaceutical Industry, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Federation for Exploratory Medicines Development (EUFEMED) organized a meeting in Leuven, Belgium entitled 'The new FIH EMA guideline: Disruptive or constructive?' to provide a forum for stakeholders to discuss the guideline's operational impact. The revised EMA Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-human (FIH) and early clinical trials with investigational products was published on 20 July 2017. The revision gave guidance on sentinel dosing/staggering of subjects within a multiple-ascending dose (MAD) clinical trial, permissible maximum exposure/investigation of supra-therapeutic doses and dose escalations above the no-observed adverse effect level. As the guidelines came into operation on 1 February, 2018 it was assumed that by the date of the meeting many early phase stakeholders had gathered sufficient first-hand experience of working within the guideline to discuss their thoughts on its impact. The concluding part of the meeting focused on the possible differences between European countries in handling the revised FIH guideline and ways of achieving harmonization. Information on current industry practice was gathered by online polling during the meeting, where perception of the revised guideline as either 'disruptive' or 'constructive' was explored at the start and at the end of the Forum along with recommendations on reducing future regulatory discordance. It was generally agreed that the necessary changes encompassed by new guidelines included both constructive and disruptive aspects. The final vote on whether the new FIH guideline is disruptive or constructive was taken by 69 delegates: 51% stated that it was both constructive and disruptive, 48% decided on constructive, none on disruptive and 1% were still undecided. It was generally accepted that stakeholders need to continue in a process of stakeholder engagement and discussion, particularly on critical safety issues. Such an approach allows partners to adopt a proactive approach to sharing best practice. For example, attendees agreed that a 'Question and Answer' document harmonized between the European agencies is required for the sentinel approach and for the selection of supratherapeutic doses.

Indexed as

conference reportdiscussionearly phase clinical drug developmentEMA (European Medicines Agency)EUFEMEDguidelinesrevised first-in-human guideline

Identifiers

PMID31068811
PMCPMC6491518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.