weekly join the centerwatch community
TRANSCRIPT
Vol. 25, Issue 21. Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch
Join the CenterWatch Community!
see Participant Compensation on page 5 »
see Use of Master Protocols on page 6 »
May 24, 2021
Industry Briefs…3
FCRI Update…4
Drug & Device Pipeline News…8Twenty-five drugs and devices have entered a new trial phase this week.
Research Center Spotlight…10
Weekly
By Charlie Passut
The use of master protocols in the U.S. will likely increase and expand into more treatment areas now that
the FDA has signaled support for the prac-tice in a new final guidance for COVID-19 trials last week.
Pamela Tenaerts, former executive direc-tor of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initia-tive (CTTI) and current chief scientific officer at Medable, said she was not surprised that the guidance emerged from an FDA with Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock at the helm.
“She is very keen, and I think the FDA is in general, to make clinical trials more efficient,” Tenaerts told CenterWatch Weekly. “That’s not to say that this is a panacea for
how every research trial should be done, but there are situations — especially when you’re talking about things like repurposed drugs — where it makes good sense to have a clinical trial with one control arm and then multiple treatment arms.”
Lindsay McNair, chief medical officer at WCG, echoed Tenaerts’ sentiments. “While the startup timelines of new clinical trials for COVID-19 therapies have been remarkable, the FDA guidance rightly points out that master protocols are a rigorous and highly efficient way to answer multiple important study questions while reducing infrastruc-ture effort and administrative time and effort,” McNair says. “We’ve certainly seen this in the example of the UK-run RECOVERY
Use of Master Protocols Expected to Grow in Wake of FDA Guidance
By Charlie Passut
Compensating clinical trial partici-pants for their time, effort and risk is a practice commonly accepted by
regulators and IRBs, although regulations do not specifically mention the concept. Instead, they require only that a trial’s informed consent process be free of any coercion or undue influence although many questions remain about what’s allowed and what isn’t.
The words “payment” and “incentive” do not appear in either FDA regulations for clinical trials or in the Common Rule, said David Borasky, vice president of IRB compli-ance for WCG IRB. “But what you are going to find is language that says informed consent must be obtained under circumstances
‘that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence,’” he said.
Because the issues are complex and there is little guidance for sponsors, sites or IRBs, sites and sponsors should work out compensation details before the budget is finalized or the clinical trial agreement is signed, making sure that all questions of influence are answered. Only then should the site begin work on the informed consent for the trial, says Jennifer Peterson, execu-tive director for site startup and regulatory for the Americas at Syneos Health. Peterson offered some “Do” and “Don’t” pointers to attendees at a recent WCG webinar on participant compensation.
“Dos” include:
Sites Look to Compensate Trial Participants While Avoiding Undue Influence
CenterWatch Holiday Notification
In observance of Memorial Day in the U.S., CWWeekly will not be published Monday, May 31. The next issue will be published Monday, June 7.
GCP Questions, FDA Answers2021 Edition
ORDER TODAY
More than 100 responsesto questions posed to OGCP, curated and segmented by category
FREE WEBINAR
REGISTER
Accelerate the Startup of Your Clinical Trials Without Sacrificing Quality: Common Pitfalls that Cause Delays and How to Avoid ThemSponsored byDiligent Pharma, LLC
J U N E
17
NEW WHITE PAPERS AVAILABLE
The Essential Guide to a Fourth-Generation eTMF
From Agatha
centerwatch.com/whitepapers
LEARN MORE
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch CWW2521
CenterWatch Weekly May 24, 2021 2 of 10
Features
By Charlie Passut
D espite the pandemic, clinical trial activity remained historically high in 2020, especially in oncology,
according to a new report by IQVIA. Clinical trial starts increased 8 percent in 2020, an annual growth rate on par with those observed since 2017.
A surge in clinical trials focused on COVID-19 vaccines and therapies resulted in 866 industry-sponsored interventional studies, yielding 12 vaccines and four novel therapeutics to date, as well as a robust pipeline for additional ongoing studies, IQVIA said.
The annual growth rate includes a recov-ery that began in mid-2020 to levels higher than the corresponding period in 2019 — even excluding new COVID-19 trials. Of those 866 trials, 51 were subsequently termi-nated; the remaining 815 trials account for 61 percent of infectious disease trials started from 2020 through early April 2021. Overall, 49 percent of COVID-19 trials remain active, 15 percent are planned but not active and 30 percent are either closed or completed.
There were a total of 4,686 clinical trials started in 2020 — including 1,821 phase 1
studies, 1,880 phase 2 studies and 985 phase 3 studies. By comparison, there were 4,325 studies started in 2019 — including 1,856 phase 1 studies, 1,590 phase 2 studies and 879 phase 3 studies. IQVIA said oncology and rare disease studies were less impacted by disruptions caused by the pandemic.
Although subsequent waves of COV-ID-19 cases have persisted, the clinical trial industry has not seen parallel disruptions to trial starts, compared to the first wave. IQVIA said adaptations and adjustments made by hospitals, investigators and spon-sors helped shield the industry from more devastating disruption.
“While there has been a rebound in trial starts, the overall capacity of sponsors and investigators to conduct trials, along with continued reduced patient volumes in health systems, may be contributing to lower numbers of trial starts,” IQVIA said.
Oncology trial starts reached historically high levels in 2020, hitting a mark more than 60 percent higher than studies started in 2015, IQVIA said, reflecting “strong momen-tum in this area and especially in rare oncol-ogy indications.” There was also significant overlap between oncology and rare dis-
eases, with rare oncology trials representing 63 percent of oncology trials overall and 64 percent of rare disease trials overall — sig-naling a trend toward precision medicine.
Clinical trial starts in eight other therapy areas — specifically, dermatology, neurol-ogy, endocrinology, immunology, cardiovas-cular disease, women’s and sexual health, respiratory disease and ophthalmology — declined slightly in 2020 but remained high in most cases and were only temporarily disrupted, IQVIA said. More of the declines were in phase 1 trials, as the pandemic hampered sponsors and investigators from initiating new trials.
IQVIA also found that clinical trial complexity continued a two-year decline in 2020, a consequence of the reduced number of sites and countries performing research due to the pandemic, and slight decreases in endpoints and eligibility criteria in trials.
The length of trials has been increasing across all phases and now averages 1.5 years for phase 1, almost three years for phase 2 and 2.5 years for phase 3, as measured from trial start to primary completion.
Read the report here: https://bit.ly/3ft wQ9n.
Clinical Trial Activity Stayed Historically High in 2020 Despite Pandemic, Especially in Oncology, IQVIA Says
Total Number of Clinical Trial Starts by Phase, 2010 to 2020
Source: Citeline Trialtrove, April 2021; IQVIA Institute, April 2021
Phase 2 Phase 3Phase 1
1,202 1,267 1,099 1,134 1,352 1,241 1,253 1,429 1,574 1,856 1,821
1,220 1,222 1,205 1,1251,182 1,272 1,332
1,4781,550
1,5901,880919 924 903 890
859 929 821799
852879
985
3,341 3,413 3,207 3,1493,393 3,442 3,406
3,7063,976
4,3254,686
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch CWW2521
CenterWatch Weekly May 24, 2021 3 of 10
Industry Briefs
CVS Launches Clinical Trial Services, Plans Trials in Stores and Homes
CVS Health says it plans to conduct phase 3 and phase 4 clinical trials from some of its stores and will work with sponsors and others to boost patient recruitment and generate real-world evidence (RWE) through its new business, Clinical Trial Services.
The new business will initially focus on patient recruitment, using its footprint and local community connections to help customers learn about upcoming relevant clinical trial opportunities, Woonsocket, R.I.-based CVS Health said.
Clinical Trial Services will support more than 200 in-home clinical trials, as well as retrospective and prospective studies for generating RWE.
The new company also plans to use some of its more than 800 CVS HealthHUB locations in 34 states to support clinical trials. CVS Health has worked with 15 of the 20 largest pharmaceutical companies through two of its businesses, Healthagen and Coram, as well as Aetna. CVS Health has already been helping with clinical trials in a pilot program from HealthHUB locations in three states.
FDA Updates Guidance on Form 1572 Waivers for Foreign Investigators
The FDA has updated its guidance on Form 1572, the FDA’s Statement of
Investigator, to clarify what sponsors can or should do if a foreign investigator is unable or unwilling to sign the form.
The guidance was developed in response to sponsor questions on how to proceed if regional, national or local laws or regulations prohibit a foreign investigator from signing the form. One option is to request a waiver from the FDA. Another is to have the foreign site operate as a noninvestigational new drug (IND) site.
The FDA also recommended that sponsors obtain signed, written state-ments from investigators acknowledg-ing their commitment to comply with any applicable regional, national or local laws.
For sponsors that choose to conduct a foreign clinical study or to operate non-U.S. sites in a multinational study under an IND, the FDA says the foreign investigators would still be in compliance with U.S. regulations if they follow Inter-national Council for Harmonization (ICH) E6 Good Clinical Practice guidelines, with two exceptions:
} FDA requirements for IRBs differ slightly under ICH E6, so sponsors would need to request an additional waiver; and
} Informed consent requirements for IRBs are more extensive under ICH E6 than under FDA regulations.
Comments on the draft guidance are due by July 19.
Read the FDA guidance here: https://bit.ly/3u79ICC.
Proposed ICH E6 Update Nets 1,300 Comments, Likely Delayed Until 2022
The International Council on Harmo-nization (ICH) said the third revision of its good clinical practice guideline will likely be delayed into 2022 as the group wades through 1,300 comments from the public about the revision.
Lisbeth Bregnhøj, GCP inspector at the Danish Health and Medicines Authority, said comments received indicate stake-holders want the ICH to identify ways in which clinical trial participants can take a more active role in trials; to consider sharing trial results with participants; and to clarify or update adverse event report-ing recommendations.
She said stakeholders also want ICH E6(R3) to address new technologies, clini-cal trial designs and data types, such as from wearables and artificial intelligence. Stakeholders also complained that some areas of the proposed guidance lack detail — including in data management, the review of safety data, the use of data monitoring or adjudication committees, and informed consent.
The ICH gave a peek into its E6(R3) draft last month (CenterWatch Weekly, April 26). The public will have another chance to comment when the draft guideline is released.
SOP Highlights include:nnDocument development/change controlnnConflict of interestnnAssessing study feasibilitynn Investigational product managementnnProtecting confidential information
ORDER TODAY
33333
Standard Operating Procedures for Good Clinical Practice by Sites26 individual SOPs easily customized to match your culture and internal processes
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
FOR GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE BY SITES
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch CWW2521
CenterWatch Weekly May 24, 2021 4 of 10
FCRI Update
Eight FCRI stocks gained. Significant gainers included IQVIA Holdings (+22%), Syneos Health (+12%) and ICON (+10%). There were no significant decliners.
NOTES ON INDICES
First Clinical Research Index (FCRI). Calculated as the mean average percentage change from baseline, dividends excluded, adjusted for stock splits. In other words, the indices are not weighted for stock price or market capitalization. Prices are in local currencies. Index components may change from time to time based on new listings, mergers and other factors. Components include 8 publicly traded clinical research stocks: CMIC (2309:JP), EPS (4282:JP), Hangzhou Tigermed Consulting (300347:CH), ICON (ICLR:US), IQVIA Holdings (IQV:US), Medpace Hold-ings (MEDP:US), PRA Health Sciences (PRAH:US), and Syneos Health (SYNH:US).
S&P 500 Index (SPX). Capitalization-weighted representative sample of 500 mostly large-capitalization companies in leading industries of the U.S. economy.
S&P 500 Pharmaceutical Index (S5PHARX). Capitalization-weighted S&P 500 companies engaged in research, development or production of pharmaceuticals.
S&P 500 Biotechnology Index (S5BIOTX). Capitalization-weighted S&P 500 companies primarily involved in development, manufacturing or marketing of products based on advanced biotechnology research.
Stock and index prices are available at http://www.bloomberg.com/ and http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/industry/bigcharts-com/industry chart.asp.
FCRI58%
S&P 50055%
Pharma51%
Biotech54%
This Month’s FCRI, a Stock Index of 8 Publicly Traded Clinical Trials Companies Here is this month’s First Clinical Research Index (FCRI), a stock index of eight publicly traded clinical research companies. Each month, Center-Watch Weekly will publish the calculation of the FCRI, based on the closing stock prices on the last trading day of the prior month, to show how the industry’s publicly traded stocks are faring compared to three other widely followed indices: the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 index, the S&P Pharmaceutical Index and the S&P Biopharmaceutical Index. For more information about the index, read on.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Jan
05Ju
n 05
Nov
05
Apr 0
6Se
p 06
Feb
07Ju
l 07
Dec
07M
ay 0
8O
ct 0
8M
ar 0
9Au
g 09
Jan
10Ju
n 10
Nov
10
Apr 1
1Se
p 11
Feb
12Ju
l 12
Dec
12M
ay 1
3O
ct 1
3M
ar 1
4Au
g 14
Jan
15Ju
n 15
Nov
15
Apr 1
6Se
p 16
Feb
17Ju
l 17
Dec
17M
ay 1
8O
ct 1
8M
ar 1
9Au
g 19
Jan
20Ju
n 20
Nov
20
Apr 2
1
S&P 500 Pharma
Biotech FCRI
MAGI's Clinical Research vConference48 sessions and workshops over eight days in eight tracks
140+ speakers with diverse expertise and backgrounds
70+ continuing education contact hours (CME, CNE, CCB, CLE, other)
VIRTUAL WORKSHOP June 22 - 24, 2021
REGISTERLearn more at www.fdanews.com/CAPA
Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for the Life Sciences
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch CWW2521
CenterWatch Weekly May 24, 2021 5 of 10
Features
} Do negotiate the payment compensa-tion line item in the trial budget first whenever possible;
} Do communicate the agreed com-pensation amount to the regulatory staff that will work on informed consent preparation;
} Do consult with the IRB for any ques-tions or concerns related to compensa-tion and reimbursement;
} Do take population, age, demograph-ics and other factors into account when determining the amount of compensation because it costs more to incentivize some participants than others and the effort to enroll as di-verse a population as possible can lead to different rates or forms of compen-sation; and
} Do pay similar amounts to participants involved in similar activities but be flexible enough to allow variation when it is based on indications or procedures that some participants undergo while others don’t.
On the list of things not to do, Peterson included:
} Don’t finalize the review of informed consent documents before the site’s budget is set;
} Don’t submit informed consent docu-ments — or any documents — to the IRB without making sure that everyone involved in the trial is in agreement on the details of the compensation scheme; and
} Don’t frontload or backload compen-sation — providing payments either before the trial starts or after it has concluded — to avoid any appearance of coercion.
Peterson says compensation for loss of wages is variable but offered some payment ranges for specific trial participant activities, including $75 to $100 for an office visit, $75 for completion of an online questionnaire, $250 for a liver biopsy and $50 for an MRI.
The clinical trials industry has seen many changes to participant compensation over the years. Compensation for caregivers in addition to participants is one idea that is gaining traction. Sites are more aware of the financial impact on those who assume the role of an elderly, pediatric or spousal partici-pant caregiver, Peterson said. Compensation to such caregivers is being made to cover for loss of wages and for transportation costs. “Loss of wages is something kind of new to the U.S.,” she said. “It had been used more significantly in Europe.”
Borasky says caregiver compensation presents no problem for IRBs. “There is no prohibition on compensating caregivers,” he told CenterWatch Weekly, “particularly when a subject’s ability to participate is dependent on caregiver assistance or even obtaining in-formation/data via the caregiver. It would be reasonable for the IRB to examine proposed caregiver compensation to ensure that it would not lead to the caregiver putting pressure on the potential subject, but I think that this is rare in reality.”
Peterson added that sites have been getting more creative in compensating pediatric participants, with games, gift cards and electronics, for example. And concierge services for adult participants, such as sites providing transportation and making travel and hotel arrangements as part of a com-pensation package, became very popular during the pandemic.
According to site partners and trial partic-ipants she has talked to, Peterson said most independent sites pay their trial participants on the day of a particular procedure or visit or on a designated day of the week, while participants at academic sites could be wait-ing upward of a few weeks for payment.
But some transactions can be almost im-mediate, she said. “I talked to one participant in a clinical trial who had just completed a visit, and by the time he got to his car he had already received a text that said his debit card had been loaded with funding for his participation,” she said. “There aren’t any true regulations or guidances governing the pay-ment schedule, but it is recommended that it’s within at least a business week.”
Participant Compensation(continued from page 1) “There is no prohibition on
compensating caregivers, particularly when a subject’s
ability to participate is dependent on caregiver assistance or even obtaining information/data via
the caregiver.”
—David Borasky, vice president of IRB compliance for WCG IRB
LEARN MORE: www.centerwatch.com/bpctsm Order today!
Successfully coordinate all aspects of your day-to-day site management responsibilities.Best Practices for Clinical Trial Site Management clarifies the regulatory requirements for clinical trials, especially for regulatory inspections. It also enables you to stay on top of broad-brush policy issues that can impact your current — and future — trials.
Best Practices for Clinical Trial Site Management
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch CWW2521
CenterWatch Weekly May 24, 2021 6 of 10
Features
clinical trial master protocol, which has ran-domized almost 40,000 participants, tested multiple potential therapies and generated important and well-controlled data on sev-eral interventions for COVID-19 treatment.
“This guidance gives a lot more muscle to master protocols,” Tenaerts adds, “which is very encouraging. That’s not to say we weren’t using master protocols. We were. We just weren’t quite as orga-nized as the UK.”
While the guidance is directed at single sponsors, McNair points out that there are few sponsors who have multiple products in development for COVID-19 solutions. According to data from WCG’s Knowledge Base, 73 percent of sponsors involved in COVID-19 research are conducting only one trial, 22 percent are conducting two to four trials and only 5 percent are conduct-ing five or more studies.
“Collaboration between sponsors to use the same master protocol is certainly pos-sible,” she adds, “and hopefully some of the collaborations and partnerships we have seen developing in the past year could contribute to this.”
In its May 17 guidance, the FDA said master protocols, when designed and executed effectively, can accelerate drug development by evaluating multiple drugs at the same time and maximizing the amount of information gained during research compared to standalone trials.
They can also save drugmakers time and money in study startup and can increase data quality and efficiency through shared and reusable infrastructure.
“In a one-off, one-arm clinical trial, every time the trial is done it gets ripped up,” Tenaerts says. “The next person who wants to come in with a new treatment has to build up the sites and set up the whole infrastructure again. Part of the master protocol system is that you create this ongoing activity — where study drugs can come in and out — so you lose having to set all that study startup time aside every single time because the center is already engaged. It creates a continuous learning environment and it’s a lot more efficient.”
While the FDA’s guidance only covers COVID-19 trials, Tenaerts says she believes the door is open to expanded use of master protocols. “At CTTI, we had a lot
of patient organizations come to us that were looking at the effectiveness of the clinical trial system. They were interested in learning how to do master protocols in areas that hadn’t typically had master pro-tocols. The areas where master protocols were happening were in oncology. These patient groups asked ‘How can we do this better? What should we think about master protocols?’”
In its guidance, the FDA advised spon-sors using master protocol designs to meet with the agency before making a change where a drug evaluated under a master protocol is incorporated into a trial as either background therapy or as part of the control arm. The FDA also advised sponsors to meet with them to discuss endpoint selection in cases where drugs intended to affect different aspects of a disease — such as anticoagulants and antivirals — may have multiple endpoints specific to the intervention.
The FDA said it may be appropriate, under certain circumstances and with agency concurrence, for sponsors to take a selective approach to safety data collec-tion for repurposed drugs being studied for use against COVID-19. The agency said sponsors should also use a central IRB to review the master protocol and should appoint an independent, third-party data monitoring committee or similar entity to assess safety and efficacy data.
Read the guidance here: https://bit.ly/ 3eReoYY.
Use of Master Protocols(continued from page 1) “The FDA guidance rightly points
out that master protocols are a rigorous and highly efficient way
to answer multiple important study questions while reducing
infrastructure effort and administrative time and effort.”
—Lindsay McNair, chief medical officer at WCG
The issue of proper documentation in IRB liabilityBy Sue Coons, MA
T he guidance Minutes of Institutional Review Board (IRB) Meetings in
Federal Register describes the requirements for IRB meet-ing minutes and provides recommenda-tions for meeting applicable regulatory
Protections (OHRP) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is intended for institutions and IRBs responsible for oversight of human subject research under HHS and FDA regulations.
However, a court case from the early -
ing IRB meeting activity not only puts IRBs in violation of regulatory standards, but also could put them in legal cross-hairs if research participants are harmed or perceive harm in a clinical trial.
Inadequate documentation in IRB
during FDA inspections, the guidance
FDA’s website for bioresearch monitor-ing (www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/default.htm -cies found during IRB inspections to be: inadequate initial and/or continuing review; inadequate written procedures; inadequate meeting minutes and mem-
bership rosters; quorum issues; prompt reporting of noncompliance, suspension/termination; Subpart D issues; and lack of or incorrect risk determination.
Learning Objectives:
1. List some of the documentation deficiencies FDA is finding in its IRB inspections.
2. Describe the claims plaintiffs in Robertson v McGee made against IRB members.
3. Explain the importance of proper documentation of IRB activities.
4. Discuss the concept of individual liability in IRB decisions.
2 CE program information
3 Regulatory update
6 IRB meeting minutes
16 CE post-test
In this issue:
see IRB liability on page 4
www.centerwatch.com/get-RP [email protected] +1 617.948.5100
Earn up to 18 contact hours accepted by ACRP, SOCRA and CCIP organizations■ Learn critical and practical strategies■
■ Subscriptions start at $143 a year
Subscribe Today!www.centerwatch.com/get-RP
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch CWW2521
CenterWatch Weekly May 24, 2021 7 of 10
Join the KMR Group Vaccines R&D and Clinical Benchmarking Study
The premier source of benchmarking data for vaccines, the 2020 KMR Group Study features the world’s leading global vaccines developers and provides them access to overall development KPIs and trial-specific metrics.
By participating in the study, you will gain access to:
• Critical information on vaccine investments and productivity • Vaccine success rates and variation by disease • Portfolio and trial cycle times by Phase and key processes • …and more.
Join the other biopharmaceutical companies who have already taken advantage of this intelligence.
To learn more about this valuable resource, visit: kmrgroup.com/vaccines.
kmrgroup.com
Gain Competitive Advantage Through Comparative Performance Assessment
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch CWW2521
CenterWatch Weekly May 24, 2021 8 of 10
Drug & Device Pipeline News
Company Drug/Device Medical Condition Status Sponsor ContactCOVID-19 Trials and ActionsLaurent Pharmaceuticals
LAU-7b hospitalized patients with COVID-19
recruitment complete in phase 2 trial
laurentpharma.com
Kintor Pharmaceutical
proxalutamide hospitalized patients with COVID-19
approval received from the FDA to proceed with a phase 3 trial
en.kintor.com.cn
LabCorp Pixel COVID-19 PCR test home collection kit for ages two to 17
COVID-19 test Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted by the FDA
labcorp.com
Roche Cobas SARS-CoV-2 test asymptomatic COVID-19 testing EUA granted by the FDA roche.comOther Trials and ActionsGammaDelta Therapeutics
GDX012 hematological malignancies IND approved by the FDA gammadeltatx.com
ImmunityBio m-ceNK platform combined with Anktiva (N-803)
locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors
IND approved by the FDA immunitybio.com
DiaMedica DM199 (recombinant human tissue kallikrein-1or KLK1)
acute ischemic stroke IND approved by the FDA for a phase 2/3 trial
diamedica.com
PharmaTher Holdings
ketamine levodopa-induced dyskinesia in patients with Parkinson’s disease
IND approved by the FDA for a phase 2 trial
pharmather.com
Propella Therapeutics
PRL-02 (abiraterone decanoate)
metastatic prostate cancer IND approved by the FDA propellatx.com
InnoCare oral ICP-332 autoimmune diseases IND approved by China's National Medical Products Administration
innocarepharma.com
Altasciences
SiteOne Therapeutics
ST-2427 management of moderate-to-severe pain
initiation of phase 1 trial altasciences.com
siteonetherapeutics.com
Crescendo Biologics CB307 patients with advanced and/or metastatic PSMA-positive solid tumors
first patient enrolled in phase 1 trial
crescendobiologics.com
GoldFinch Bio GFB-024 severe insulin-resistant diabetic nephropathy
first patients dosed in phase 1 trial
goldfinchbio.com
Mustang Bio
City of Hope
MB-101 (autologous IL13Rα2-CAR T cells)
leptomeningeal brain tumors (e.g., glioblastoma, ependymoma or medulloblastoma)
first patients dosed in phase 1 trial
mustangbio.com
cityofhope.orgPyramid Biosciences PBI-100 mild-to-moderate psoriasis first patients dosed in phase
1 trialpyramidbio.com
Catalyst Biosciences marzeptacog alfa (activated); MarzAA
bleeding in FVII deficiency, Glanzmann thrombasthenia and hemophilia A with inhibitor patients receiving Hemlibra prophylaxis
first patient dosed in phase 1/2 trial
catalystbiosciences.com
GeneTx Biotherapeutics
Ultragenyx Pharmaceuticals
intrathecally administered GTX-102
Angelman syndrome clearance from Health Canada to initiate phase 1/2 trial
genetxbio.com
ultragenyx.com
continues on next page »
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch CWW2521
CenterWatch Weekly May 24, 2021 9 of 10
Drug & Device Pipeline News (continued from page 8)
Company Drug/Device Medical Condition Status Sponsor ContactXalud Therapeutics XT-150 patients with radicular
neuropathic pain due to lumbar disc disease
first patient dosed in phase 1/2a trial
xaludthera.com
Galera Therapeutics GC4711 in combination with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)
locally advanced pancreatic cancer
first patient dosed in phase 2b trial
galeratx.com
Xalud Therapeutics XT-150 moderate-to-severe pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee
recruitment complete in phase 2b trial
xaludthera.com
Endogena Therapeutics
EA-2353 ophthalmic suspension
retinitis pigmentosa Orphan Drug designation granted by the FDA
endogena.com
GammaDelta Therapeutics
GDX012 acute myeloid leukemia Orphan Drug designation granted by the FDA
gammadeltatx.com
Bridge BioPharma BBP-631 congenital adrenal hyperplasia Fast-Track designation granted by the FDA
bridgebio.com
Palisade Bio LB1148 reduction of adhesions following abdominal or pelvic surgery
Fast-Track designation granted by the FDA
palisadebio.com
Apellis Pharmaceuticals
Empaveli (pegcetacoplan)
adults with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria
approved by the FDA apellis.com
Learn more at www.centerwatch.com/crctrainer
The CRC TrainerAn Interactive Companion to The CRC’s Guide to CoordinatingClinical Research.
The CRC Trainer is an interactive course built to support learners in a self-paced journey through the complex material of the guide. It covers all essential aspects of the coordinator role and focuses on the most important material in the guide.
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch CWW2521
CenterWatch Weekly May 24, 2021 10 of 10
Research Center Spotlight
Research Center Spotlight is a selection of clinical research centers who have Research Center Profile pages posted on CenterWatch.com. Included in their annual subscriptions, company profiles are randomly selected to appear in this section, providing added exposure for their expertise and services in conducting and managing clinical studies.
To learn more about becoming a Research Center Profile page subscriber, contact Sales at 617.948.5100 or [email protected].
Hollywood, [email protected]
Infinity Clinical Research is the research division of a consortium of single and multispecialty, multidisciplinary medical practices throughout Broward County, Florida.
Cincinnati, [email protected]
Bernstein Clinical Research Center has been conducting clinical research since 1969 in adult and pediatric patients. The center has contributed to the development of new therapies for asthma, allergic rhinitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Torrance, [email protected]
Advanced Dermatology Institute has been conducting clinical research in dermatology for more than 35 years.
Toms River, [email protected]
Advanced Memory Research Institute of New Jersey specializes in identifying memory prob-lems, reviewing currently approved treatments and clinical research opportunities.
Wheat Ridge, [email protected]
Western States Clinical Research consists of an independent study coordinating group working with a select group of principal investi-gators in several therapeutic areas. We participate in phase 2 to 4 trials for the pharmaceutical industry.
Las Vegas, [email protected]
Sierra Clinical Research is a dedicated research site in the greater Las Vegas area conducting studies in a variety of therapeutic areas, including pulmonology, gastroenterology, cardiology, pediatrics, dermatology and neurology.
Philadelphia, [email protected]
Paddington Testing Company is a center devoted to clinical research as part of a dermatologic practice. The clinical trials center conducts both in- and outpatient studies related to the skin, hair and nails.
Renton, [email protected]
Rainier Clinical Research Center is a privately owned, independent research clinic conducting phase 1 through phase 4 clinical trials of both drugs and devices.
Paddington Testing Company
Rainier Clinical Research Center
Advanced Dermatology Institute
Advanced Memory Research Institute of New Jersey
Bernstein Clinical Research Center Sierra Clinical Research
Infinity Clinical Research Western States Clinical Research
300 N. Washington St., Suite 200 • Falls Church, VA 22046-3431 Phone: 866.219.3440 or 617.948.5100 Customer Service: [email protected]
Editorial Director: Beth Belton, 703.538.7641, [email protected] Reporter: Charlie Passut, 703.538.7664, [email protected]: Russ Titsch, 813.767.6463, [email protected]
Copyright © 2021 by WCG CenterWatch. All rights reserved. CenterWatch Weekly (ISSN 1528-5731), an executive news briefing for the clinical trials industry, is published 48 times a year and is available for free. Photocopying or reproducing in any form is a violation of federal copyright law and is strictly prohibited without the publisher’s permission.
www.centerwatch.com