• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.146-153
• /
• 2018

Objective: Multi-regional clinical trials have been widely used for accelerating global drug development by multinational pharmaceutical companies. In this study, we aimed to review and analyze the international trends in regulations and guidelines on multi-regional clinical trials by regulatory authorities and international organizations, such as International Conference on Harmonisation, for referring to policies, including development of domestic guidelines for multi-regional clinical trials. Methods: The policies, regulations, and guidelines published by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (Japan), and China Food and Drug Administration were searched, and the International Conference on Harmonisation E17 draft guideline was reviewed. Results: The regulatory authorities in developed countries have developed and implemented regulations and guidelines on multi-regional clinical trials to promote simultaneous global drug development and evaluate the regional differences in drug safety and efficacy. International Conference on Harmonisation developed the draft guideline for planning/designing of multi-regional clinical trials in 2016, which recommends the general principles for strategy-related issues and design of multi-regional clinical trials, and for protocol-related issues, such as consideration of regional variability, subject selection, dose selection, endpoints, comparators, overall sample size, allocation to regions, collecting information on efficacy and safety, and statistical analysis. Conclusion: It is important to understand the international regulatory requirements for designing and planning of multi-regional clinical trials for global drug development. Moreover, it is necessary to prepare multi-regional clinical trial guidelines in accordance with the Korean regulation for clinical trials and drug administration.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.267-277
• /
• 2019

Backgrounds: With the globalization of drug development, multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) have emerged to facilitate rapid availability of medicines to patients worldwide. The present study aimed to has explored attitudes and perceptions towards adopting the Korean MRCT guideline. Methods: An online survey, consisting of 16 questions, classified into two subjects, was administered to stakeholders in Korea. Most quantitative components were measured using the Likert scales. A content analysis of the qualitative components was carried out to identify the keywords in open-ended responses. Results: A total of 94 survey responses were analyzed: 51 participants from pharmaceutical companies, 11 from clinical research organizations, and 21 from clinical trial centers. The content of the guideline was rated as appropriate for clarity, acceptability, and applicability (96.8, 96.8, and 93.6%, respectively). The local environmental impact of the systemic/political, academic/technical, and industrial/economical aspects of the guideline was rated as appropriate at 95.7, 97.9, and 91.5%, respectively. The suggested adoption period was 1~2 years (40, 42.6%). The concept and individuals' domestic circumstances were the key problems affecting the clarity, applicability, and local environmental impact of the guideline. Conclusion: The Korean MRCT guideline was well-developed. Their overall impact on the local environmental impact of MRCTs in Korea was expected to be beneficial, but methods are needed to minimize the negative impacts. The findings of this study can inform the priorities for the future adoption of the guideline in Korea.

• Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.341-354
• /
• 2018

The one of the principles described in ICH E9 is that only results obtained from pre-specified statistical methods in a protocol are regarded as confirmatory evidence. However, in multi-regional clinical trials, even when results obtained from pre-specified statistical methods in protocol are significant, it does not guarantee that the test treatment is approved by regional regulatory agencies. In other words, there is no so-called global approval, and each regional regulatory agency makes its own decision in the face of the same set of data from a multi-regional clinical trial. Under this situation, there are two natural methods a regional regulatory agency can use to estimate the treatment effect in a particular region. The first method is to use the overall treatment estimate, which is to extrapolate the overall result to the region of interest. The second method is to use regional treatment estimate. If the treatment effect is completely identical across all regions, it is obvious that the overall treatment estimator is more efficient than the regional treatment estimator. However, it is not possible to confirm statistically that the treatment effect is completely identical in all regions. Furthermore, some magnitude of regional differences within the range of clinical relevance may naturally exist for various reasons due to, for instance, intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Nevertheless, if the magnitude of regional differences is relatively small, a conventional method to estimate the treatment effect in the region of interest is to extrapolate the overall result to that region. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects produced by this type of extrapolation via estimations, followed by hypothesis testing of the treatment effect in the region of interest. This paper is written from the viewpoint of regional regulatory agencies.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.14 no.12
• /
• pp.7301-7307
• /
• 2013

Background: Conspicuous differences in participation rates for breast self-examination (BSE), clinical breast examination (CBE), and referral for further investigations have been observed indicating involvement of a number of different factors. This study analysed determinants for participation in different levels of the breast cancer screening process in Indian females. Materials and Methods: An intervention group of 52,011 women was interviewed in a breast cancer screening trial in Trivandrum district, India. In order to assess demographic, socio-economic, reproductive, and cancer-related determinants of participation in BSE, CBE, and referral, uni- and multi-variate logistic regression was employed. Results: Of the interviewed women, 23.2% reported practicing BSE, 96.8% had attended CBE, and 49.1% of 2,880 screen-positives attended referral. Results showed an influence of various determinants on participation; women who were currently not married or who had no family history of cancer were significantly less likely to attend the screening process at any level. Conclusions: Increasing awareness about breast cancer, early detection methods, and the advantages of early diagnoses among women, and their families, as well as health care workers offering social support, could help to increase participation over the entire screening process in India.