Including patient advocates in decision-making is critical but can create strategic conflicts. A patient group advocated for unblinding a trial early for faster access, a move that pleased the market but was criticized by regulators for potentially compromising long-term survival data.
Related Insights
Several panelists voted "yes" for approval not because of a compelling risk/benefit profile, but because they believe physicians and patients should have the "option" to choose the therapy. This reveals a philosophy where regulatory approval is seen as a gateway to choice, deferring the final, nuanced risk-benefit decision to the clinic.
Despite rigid protocols, investigators must use their clinical judgment, informed by prior data, to enroll patients they believe will genuinely benefit. This patient-centric approach is viewed as not only ethical but also crucial for achieving a positive trial outcome, blending the art of medicine with the science of research.
Despite compelling data from trials like PATINA, some patients with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer refuse maintenance endocrine therapy due to side effects. This highlights a real-world gap between clinical trial evidence and patient adherence, forcing oncologists to navigate patient preferences against optimal treatment protocols.
Don't wait until Phase 3 to think about commercialization. Biotech firms must embed secondary endpoints in Phase 2 trials that capture quality of life and patient journey insights. This data is critical for building a compelling value proposition that resonates with payers and secures market access.
The lack of a placebo arm in some adjuvant trials is not necessarily a fatal flaw. One expert view is that it mirrors real-world practice where treatments are known. This perspective places trust in the investigators' ability to assess disease progression accurately without blinding.
Praxis Interactive's essential tremor drug succeeded in Phase 3 despite an earlier data monitoring committee (DMC) recommendation to stop for futility. This rare outcome shows that interim analyses on a small fraction of patients can be misleading due to high variance, and continuing a trial against DMC advice can be a winning strategy.
Developers often test novel agents in late-line settings because the control arm is weaker, increasing the statistical chance of success. However, this strategy may doom effective immunotherapies by testing them in biologically hostile, resistant tumors, masking their true potential.
The CREST trial's positive primary endpoint, assessed by investigators in an open-label setting, was rendered negative upon review by a blinded independent committee. This highlights the critical risk of confirmation bias and the immense weight regulators place on blinded data to determine a drug's true efficacy, especially when endpoints are subjective.
M&A is often framed as a win, but it can be detrimental to patients. The acquisition of an aggressive, fast-moving biotech by a large pharma company can lead to slowed development timelines and more conservative regulatory strategies, ultimately delaying access to life-saving treatments.
When patient engagement is owned by a single department, it's often treated as optional. To make it a core business driver, responsibility must be shared across R&D, medical, regulatory, and commercial teams. This requires a structural and cultural shift to become truly transformational for the organization.
