Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation: 10 Year Review: 2011-2020 (2021)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Reflecting Back: Forum Activities in 2011–2020 Over the past decade, Envisioning a Transformed Clinical Trials Enterprise in the United States: Establishing an Agenda for 2020 (2012)1 tremendous advances have In November 2011, amid growing concerns about the future of the U.S. clinical been made to improve public trials enterprise and its competitiveness on the global stage, the forum convened participation throughout a public workshop for stakeholders to lay out a vision for a transformed clinical trials enterprise in the United States by 2020. At the time, there was growing recognition the drug R&D lifecycle. that the clinical trials enterprise in the United States faced substantial challenges impeding the efficient and effective conduct of clinical research to support the development of new medicines and evaluate existing therapies. Reflecting back over the past decade, there have been advances in the field as well as setbacks: Integrating Community Practice and Clinical Research Despite efforts on the part of key stakeholders, including researchers, sponsors, government agencies, clinicians, and patients, the divide between community practice and clinical research remains. At the time of the workshop, health care was moving toward more integrated delivery systems and the widespread use of EHRs. Workshop participants called for disruptive innovation and a push for health delivery systems—along with other research, clinical, and educational entities—to develop and implement business plans that integrate research into routine clinical practice. Yet today, progress toward this goal has been limited. 1 The full text of Envisioning a Transformed Clinical Trials Enterprise in the United States: Establishing an Agenda for 2020: Workshop Summary (IOM, 2012) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13345. 8 

Reflecting Back: Forum Activities in 2011–2020 Forum members at the 42nd forum Improving Public Participation in Clinical Trials meeting held in March 2019. Over the past decade, tremendous advances have been made to improve public participation throughout the drug R&D lifecycle, including several laws that incorporate the voice and perspective of patients. In 2010, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established by an act of Congress to improve the quality and relevance of patient-centered evidence available to patients, caregivers, clinicians, policy makers, and other stakeholders for making better informed health decisions. The 2012 FDA Safety and Innovation Act2 and corresponding fifth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V) included provisions to enhance the role of the patient voice in the drug development process. Within the past few years, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act,3 and the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017,4 which included patient engagement provisions. The push for a more people-centered approach to drug R&D has led to a culture shift among public and private stakeholders. “Patient-centeredness” and “patient-focused” drug development are now part of the everyday lexicon. 2 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-144, 112th Cong. (July 9, 2012) 3 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, Public Law 114-255, 114th Cong. (Dec. 13, 2016) 4 FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, Public Law 115-52, 115th Cong. (Aug. 18, 2017) 9 

Participants discuss actions stakeholders could take to improve transparent reporting of biomedical research during a 2019 workshop on Enhancing Scientific Reproducibility Through Transparent Reporting. 10 

Reflecting Back: Forum Activities in 2011–2020 Aligning Cultural and Financial Incentives There has been significant change in the regulatory environment over the past 10 years. A modernized way of thinking in this space has improved the field of clinical trials. There has been progress when it comes to developing and implementing incentives for drug development to treat rare diseases and cancer. These improved business models have addressed unmet needs for these conditions/ diseases, but now the trials enterprise is seeing comparatively low investment in drug innovation for treating prevalent chronic conditions. With many suboptimal drugs for these conditions on the market, the current fee-for-service reimbursement system provides little incentive for the biopharmaceutical industry to invest in developing new treatments. Without sufficient investment, much of the basic biology of these diseases remains unknown, and fewer exciting breakthroughs and opportunities for publishing are furthering the waning interest in researching these conditions. Building the Infrastructure and Workforce The clinical trials infrastructure requires substantial resources to recruit investigators, coordinate across research sites, implement quality control systems, enroll and retain trial participants, and seek regulatory approval. Responsible sharing of clinical trial data is in the public interest and helps maximize the benefits of research for future patients and society as a whole. Collaborative approaches are needed to support the collection, management, analysis, and sharing of clinical trial data. The development and application of regulatory science calls for a well-trained, scientifically engaged, and motivated workforce. The forum has fostered the development of strategies to improve the discipline of innovative regulatory science and continues to focus attention on critical infrastructure and workforce issues. Considerable opportunities remain to improve and enhance the infrastructure supporting the clinical trials enterprise. Clinical Trials and Medical Product Development Sharing Clinical Research Data—A Workshop (2012)5 On October 4–5, 2012, four convening bodies—the Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; the Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders; the National Cancer Policy Forum; and the Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health (now called the Roundtable on Genomics 11 

and Precision Health)—collectively hosted a workshop to examine and advance the sharing of clinical data. The workshop explored the benefits of sharing clinical research data, the barriers to such sharing, and strategies to address these barriers to facilitate the development of safe, effective therapeutics and diagnostics. Participants in the workshop discussed the importance of developing mutually beneficial partnerships in promoting data sharing, the need for data standardization to improve reliability, and how incentives are fundamental to a culture shift that recognizes the value of data sharing. Sharing Clinical Trial Data—An Action Collaborative6 A related action collaborative jointly convened by the Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; the Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders; the National Cancer Policy Forum; and the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health was launched in 2016. Through meetings with interested parties, including nonprofit funders of research, patient advocacy organizations, and data- sharing stakeholders, the action collaborative developed and refined a statement of data-sharing goals that could be incorporated into participating organizations’ funding policies. In March 2021, participants published a Viewpoint in the Journal of Participatory Medicine, “Data Sharing Goals for Nonprofit Funders of Clinical Trials.”7 Real-World Evidence Generation and Evaluation of Therapeutics— A Workshop (2016)8 On October 19, 2016, the forum convened a workshop to examine opportunities and challenges for incorporating real-world evidence into the evaluation of medical products. Workshop participants discussed how various sources of real-world data (e.g., claims data, patient-generated data) could be used to address unmet stakeholder needs; priorities for improving evidence generation to support decision making; barriers to incorporating real-world evidence into product development and process evaluation; and next steps to expand the role of real-world evidence in the development and evaluation of therapeutics. 12 

Reflecting Back: Forum Activities in 2011–2020 Examining the Impact of Real-World Evidence on Medical Product Development—A Workshop Series (2017–2018)9 Over the course of several months in 2017 and 2018, the forum hosted a series of three workshops on the generation and utilization of real-world evidence, sponsored by FDA. Each workshop in the series focused on a different topic, with workshop 1 exploring how to align incentives to support the collection of real-world data and the use of real-world evidence in health product review, payment, and delivery. Workshop 2 focused on illuminating what types of data are appropriate for what specific purposes and suggesting approaches for data collection and evidence use by developing and working through example use cases. Workshop 3 examined and suggested approaches for operationalizing real-world data collection and the use of real-world evidence. In June 2021, some individual workshop speakers and attendees published a set of four articles in in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, which were inspired by what they learned at this workshop series and took into account lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. • “When Can We Rely on Real-World Evidence to Evaluate New Medical Treatments?” outlines the paper series’ scope, context, and the dimensions considered where real-world evidence studies may differ from traditional trials.10 • “When Can We Trust Real-World Data to Evaluate New Medical Treatments?” lays out questions to help stakeholders assess potential error or bias at each step of data generation from clinical presentation (including with a device) to inclusion in a database.11 5 The full text of Sharing Clinical Research Data: Workshop Summary (IOM, 2013) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18267. 6 For more information on this action collaborative, see https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/sharing- clinical-trial-data-an-action-collaborative. 7 The article “Data Sharing Goals for Nonprofit Funders of Clinical Trials” (2021) published in the Journal of Participatory Medicine is available at https://jopm.jmir.org/2021/1/e23011. 8 The full text of Real-World Evidence Generation and Evaluation of Therapeutics: Proceedings of a Workshop (NASEM, 2017) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24685. 9 The full text of Examining the Impact of Real-World Evidence on Medical Product Development: Proceedings of a Workshop (NASEM, 2019) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25352. 10 The article “When Can We Rely on Real-World Evidence to Evaluate New Medical Treatments?” (2021) published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics is available at https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.2253. 11 The article “When Can We Trust Real-World Data to Evaluate New Medical Treatments?” (2021) published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics is available at https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.2252. 13 

Forum member, Ellen Sigal, shares her thoughts at the March 2018 forum meeting. • “When Are Treatment Blinding and Treatment Standardization Necessary in Real-World Clinical Trials?” lays out questions to help stakeholders determine whether blinding and treatment standardization may be necessary for the internal validity of a study or may distort meaningful differences between treatments in specific cases.12 • “When Can Nonrandomized Studies Support Valid Inference Regarding Effectiveness or Safety of New Medical Treatments?” lays out questions to help stakeholders evaluate the potential impact of confounding or other 14 biases on their research findings.13 

Reflecting Back: Forum Activities in 2011–2020 Improving the Drug Development Process Through Examining Late-Stage Failures—An Action Collaborative14 This action collaborative examined the contributing factors in the failure of late-stage clinical product development and developed key considerations for stakeholders to improve the probability of success. Action collaborative participants conducted a literature survey as well as a series of structured informational interviews with stakeholders directly involved in late-stage therapeutic development. Results were analyzed, categorized, and presented at a meeting of action collaborative participants at which additional insights were discussed. The efforts of action collaborative participants culminated in the publication of an article in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, “The Failure to Fail Smartly.”15 Innovation and the Drug Research and Development Enterprise Virtual Clinical Trials: Challenges and Opportunities— A Workshop (2018)16 On November 28–29, 2018, the forum hosted a workshop, Virtual Clinical Trials: Challenges and Opportunities. This workshop examined the clinical trials infrastructure and potential opportunities for supporting the practical implementation of virtual clinical trials. Workshop participants discussed the inefficiencies of the existing clinical trial enterprise; the boundaries of what might be considered a virtual clinical trial; opportunities to expand access for patients; perspectives of using digital health technologies in clinical care and observational and interventional studies; impact of using digital health technologies on access and equity to clinical trials; policy landscape governing clinical trials; and possible opportunities for future action. 12 The article “When Are Treatment Blinding and Treatment Standardization Necessary in Real-World Clinical Trials?” (2021) published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics is available at https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/10.1002/cpt.2256. 13 The article “When Can Nonrandomized Studies Support Valid Inference Regarding Effectiveness or Safety of New Medical Treatments?” (2021) published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics is available at https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.2255. 14 For more information on this action collaborative, see https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/ improving-the-drug-development-process-through-examining-late-stage-failures-an-action-collaborative. 15 The article “The Failure to Fail Smartly” (2020) published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery is available at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00167-0. 16 The full text of Virtual Clinical Trials: Challenges and Opportunities: Proceedings of a Workshop (NASEM, 2019) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25502. 15 

Mapping and Connecting the Biomedical Innovation Ecosystem—An Action Collaborative17 The Mapping and Connecting the Biomedical Innovation Ecosystem action collaborative was established under the auspices of the forum to help frame, map, and synergize activities and communication across the biomedical innovation ecosystem. Action collaborative participants developed two process maps— coined the Drug Discovery, Development, and Deployment Maps (4DM)—that diagram the development of small molecules and biologics, which are digitally hosted by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at NIH. The There is growing momentum process maps served as the foundation for two complementary peer-reviewed to incorporate patient input articles released in December 2017 and co-authored by action collaborative into medical product R&D and participants to guide future dialogue and progress on this topic. “A Dynamic regulatory decision-making Map for Learning, Communicating, Navigating, and Improving Therapeutic Development” was published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery18 and processes. “Application of a Dynamic Map for Learning, Communicating, Navigating, and Improving Therapeutic Development” was simultaneously published in Clinical and Translational Science.19 The Role of Digital Health Technologies in Drug Development— A Workshop (2020)20 The forum and the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health hosted a public workshop on March 24, 2020, which provided a venue for stakeholders to discuss challenges and opportunities in using digital health technologies to improve the probability of success in drug development. The COVID-19 pandemic, which was only beginning to disrupt daily life at the time of the workshop, added a sense of urgency to the workshop discussions on practical and ethical considerations for the development and implementation of digital health technologies. Workshop participants considered key components for an evidence-based framework for applying digital health technologies toward drug R&D. Workshop participants discussed how digital health technologies could be uniquely suited to address persistent problems in drug R&D, considered barriers to implementing digital health technologies, and discussed opportunities to move the field forward. 16 

Reflecting Back: Forum Activities in 2011–2020 Forum member, Freda Lewis-Hall, presents her thoughts during a discussion at the March 2018 forum meeting. 17 For more information on this action collaborative, see https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/mapping- and-connecting-the-biomedical-innovation-ecosystem-an-action-collaborative. 18 The article “A Dynamic Map for Learning, Communicating, Navigating, and Improving Therapeutic Development” (2017) published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery is available at https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.217. 19 The article “Application of a Dynamic Map for Learning, Communicating, Navigating, and Improving Therapeutic Development” (2017) published in Clinical and Translational Science is available at https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/full/10.1111/cts.12531. 20 The full text of The Role of Digital Health Technologies in Drug Development: Proceedings of a Workshop (NASEM, 2020) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25850. 17 

Science Across the Biomedical Research Lifecycle Deriving Drug Discovery Value from Large-Scale Genetic Bioresources—A Workshop (2016)21 On March 22, 2016, the forum and the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health convened a workshop to examine and discuss how large-scale genetic data could be used to improve the likelihood of bringing effective and targeted therapies to patients. Workshop participants assessed the current landscape of genomic- enabled drug discovery and development activities; examined enabling partnerships and better business models; and considered gaps and best practices in how data from populations could be collected with the goal of improving the drug discovery process. Enabling Precision Medicine: The Role of Genetics in Clinical Drug Development—A Workshop (2018)22 Those involved in the drug development process face challenges of efficiency and overall sustainability due in part to high research costs, lengthy development timelines, and late-stage failures. Novel clinical trial designs that enroll participants based on their genetics represent a potentially disruptive change that could improve patient outcomes, reduce costs associated with drug development, and further realize the goals of precision medicine. On March 8, 2017, the forum and the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health hosted a workshop that examined successes, challenges, and possible best practices for effectively using genetic information in the design and implementation of clinical trials to support the development of precision medicines, including exploring the potential advantages and disadvantages of such trials across a variety of disease areas. Workshop participants took a general, high-level approach in their examination of these issues to take a pulse of the successes that have been realized and the challenges that have been encountered, and considered how these experiences might inform the advancement of precision medicine. 18 

Reflecting Back: Forum Activities in 2011–2020 The forum hosts speakers at the workshop on Drug Research and Development for Adults Across the Older Age Span, held virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Enhancing Scientific Reproducibility in Biomedical Research Through Transparent Reporting—A Workshop (2019)23 In collaboration with the Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders, the National Cancer Policy Forum, and the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health, the forum convened a workshop on September 25–26, 2019, to examine the state of transparency in reporting biomedical research (e.g., disclosure of the availability and location of data, materials, analyses, and methodology) and to explore the possibility of improving the harmonization of guidelines across journals and funding agencies so that biomedical researchers propose and report data in a consistent manner. Workshop participants discussed the challenges and opportunities for the harmonization of guidelines for transparent reporting throughout the biomedical research lifecycle. The agenda included a panel discussion on facilitating the development of consistent guidelines (e.g., a common set of minimal reporting standards) that could be applied across journals and funders to increase transparency in proposing and reporting biomedical research. This workshop was sponsored by Cell Press, The Lancet, Nature Research, and NIH. 21 The full text of Deriving Drug Discovery Value from Large-Scale Genetic Bioresources: Proceedings of a Workshop (NASEM, 2016) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23601. 22 The full text of Enabling Precision Medicine: The Role of Genetics in Clinical Dug Development: Proceedings of a Workshop (NASEM, 2017) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24829. 23 The full text of Enhancing Scientific Reproducibility in Biomedical Research Through Transparent Reporting: Proceedings of a Workshop (NASEM, 2020) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25627. 19 

Forum members (from left to right) Ross McKinney, Jr., Anantha Shekhar, Bernard Munos, and Ann E. Taylor sharing their thoughts at the July 2019 forum meeting. 20 

Reflecting Back: Forum Activities in 2011–2020 Person-centeredness and Inclusivity Advancing the Science of Patient Input on Medical Product R&D: Towards a Research Agenda—A Workshop (2018)24 There is growing momentum to incorporate patient input into medical product R&D and regulatory decision-making processes. Converting traditionally anecdotal patient input to rigorous, credible evidence could better align medical product development and regulation with patient perspectives on disease experience, burden, management, and treatment. The forum convened a workshop on May 9, 2018, focused on the science of patient input for pre-market medical product R&D (including pre-discovery, discovery, pre-clinical development, and clinical development), with consideration of downstream regulatory and post-market decision making. At this workshop, subject-matter experts representing a range of disciplines examined the current state of the science, including successes and limitations of existing efforts, for soliciting and incorporating patient input in pre-market R&D; explored gaps in the knowledge base and other barriers that impede progress; and reviewed a potential framework for and components of a research agenda for addressing the gaps or barriers to realizing a science of patient input. Drug Research and Development for Adults Across the Older Age Span— A Workshop (2020)25 Despite the widespread recognition of the “graying of America,” and the need for health care among older adults, there is a dearth of information about the appropriate use of drugs in this population. Older adults are vastly underrepresented in clinical trials. Yet, older adults have higher rates of comorbidities and polypharmacy than the general population and are the majority users of many medications. Additionally, age-related physiological and pathological changes, particularly for adults over age 80, can lead to significant differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics of a given drug compared to the general population. There is a void in evidence-based information for making informed decisions on how to best optimize care for older adults. In collaboration with the Forum on Aging, Disability, and Independence and the National Cancer Policy Forum, the forum hosted a workshop on August 5 and 6, 2020, The full text of Advancing the Science of Patient Input in Medical Product R&D: Towards a Research Agenda: 24 Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief (NASEM, 2018) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25325. The full text of Drug Research and Development for Adults Across the Older Age Span: Proceedings of a 25 Workshop (NASEM, 2021) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25998. 21 

that discussed the challenges and opportunities in drug R&D for the over age 65 and over age 80 populations, explored barriers that impede safety and efficacy studies in these populations, and shared lessons learned and best practices for better understanding the clinical pharmacology for older adults. Infrastructure and Workforce Building a National Framework for the Establishment of Regulatory Science for Drug Development—A Workshop (2010)26 The 2007 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public 27 identified the need for an improved science base for drug evaluation within FDA, including internal resources and extramural funding for collaboration with academia. In that same year, the FDA Science Board,28 at the request of Congress, reported on the agency’s need for an enhanced science base, The development and including infrastructure development, multisector collaboration, and an expanded application of regulatory workforce capable of addressing the rapidly evolving science of drug discovery and science . . . calls for a development. In 2008, the forum held a public workshop to explore the science of well-trained, scientifically drug regulation, focusing on the gap between leading-edge technologies of drug development and FDA’s capacity to adapt its process of regulatory evaluation to engaged, and these technologies. Together, the results of these efforts suggested a widening gap motivated workforce. between scientific developments in areas relevant to FDA’s mission and its ability to address these innovations, as well as a lack of understanding among the public, policy makers, and the agency of what is required to fill this gap. To address these concerns, the forum convened a public workshop on February 26, 2010, to examine the state of the science of drug regulation and consider approaches for enhancing the scientific basis of regulatory decision making. Workshop participants explored the concept of regulatory science, examined how it could be used to improve regulatory decision making, and considered alternative mechanisms and institutional frameworks for its development and application. 22 

Reflecting Back: Forum Activities in 2011–2020 Strengthening a Workforce for Innovative Regulatory Science in Therapeutics Development—A Workshop (2011)29 The development and application of regulatory science—which FDA defined as the science of developing new tools, standards, and approaches to assess the safety, efficacy, quality, and performance of FDA-regulated products—calls for a well- trained, scientifically engaged, and motivated workforce. FDA faces challenges in retaining regulatory scientists and providing them with opportunities for professional development. In the private sector, advancement of innovative regulatory science in drug development has not always been clearly defined, well-coordinated, or connected to the needs of the agency. On September 20–21, 2011, the forum held a public workshop that considered the opportunities and needs for advancing innovation in the discipline of regulatory science for therapeutics development through an interdisciplinary regulatory science workforce. Workshop participants discussed the core components of a robust discipline of regulatory science; deliberated on the key competencies for a regulatory science workforce; and examined the needs and opportunities to promote training, career development, and collaborative approaches to sustain and nurture a workforce in innovative regulatory science. 26 The full text of Building a National Framework for the Establishment of Regulatory Science for Drug Development: Workshop Summary (IOM, 2011) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12968. 27 The full text of The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public (IOM, 2007) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11750. 28 The FDA Science Board is an advisory committee with the following mission: “The Science Board shall provide advice to the Commissioner and other appropriate officials on specific complex scientific and technical issues important to FDA and its mission, including emerging issues within the scientific community. Additionally, the Science Board will provide advice that supports the Agency in keeping pace with technical and scientific developments, including in regulatory science; and input into the Agency’s research agenda; and on upgrading its scientific and research facilities and training opportunities. It will also provide, where requested, expert review of Agency sponsored intramural and extramural scientific research programs.” 29 The full text of Strengthening a Workforce for Innovative Regulatory Science in Therapeutics Development: Workshop Summary (IOM, 2012) is available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13283. 23