The first formal qualification of safety biomarkers for regulatory decision making marks a milestone in the application of biomarkers to drug development. Following submission of drug toxicity studies and analyses of biomarker performance to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) by the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium's (PSTC) Nephrotoxicity Working Group, seven renal safety biomarkers have been qualified for limited use in nonclinical and clinical drug development to help guide safety assessments. This was a pilot process, and the experience gained will both facilitate better understanding of how the qualification process will probably evolve and clarify the minimal requirements necessary to evaluate the performance of biomarkers of organ injury within specific contexts.

The concept of adaptive licensing (AL) has met with considerable interest. Yet some remain skeptical about its feasibility. Others argue that the focus and name of AL should be broadened. Against this background of ongoing debate, we examine the environmental changes that will likely make adaptive pathways the preferred approach in the future. The key drivers include: growing patient demand for timely access to promising therapies, emerging science leading to fragmentation of treatment populations, rising payer influence on product accessibility, and pressure on pharma/investors to ensure sustainability of drug development. We also discuss a number of environmental changes that will enable an adaptive paradigm. A life‐span approach to bringing innovation to patients is expected to help address the perceived access vs. evidence trade‐off, help de‐risk drug development, and lead to better outcomes for patients.

Increased incidence of cancer at various sites is observed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In particular, lymphomas and carcinomas of the kidney, prostate, liver and uterus show an enhanced prevalence in these subjects compared with the general population. A multitude of factors directly or indirectly associated with the renal disease and the treatment regimens may contribute to the increased tumor formation in these patients. Impaired function of the immune system and of DNA repair mechanisms as well as reduced antioxidant defense, accumulation of carcinogenic compounds partly due to reduced renal elimination as well as chronic infections and inflammations are found more frequently in patients with ESRD compared with the general population and may act in concert to accelerate malignant transformation and tumor formation.

Compared to drugs from the blockbuster era, recently authorised drugs and those expected in the future present a heterogenous mix of chemicals, biologicals, and cell and gene therapies, a sizable fraction being for rare diseases and even individualised treatments or individualised combinations. The shift in the nature of products entails secular trends for the definitions of "drugs" and "target population" and for clinical use and evidence generation. We discuss that the lessons learned from evidence generation for 20 th century medicines may have limited relevance for 21 st century medicines. We explain why the future is not about randomised controlled trials (RCTs) versus real world evidence (RWE) but RCTs and RWE-not just for the assessment of safety but also of effectiveness. Finally, we highlight that, in the era of precision medicine, we may not be able to reliably describe some small treatment effects-either by way of RCTs or RWE.

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients’ health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient’s health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment—Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention.