There is an urgent global need for new strategies and drugs to control and treat multi-drug resistant bacterial infections. In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a list of 12 antibiotic-resistant priority pathogens and began to critically analyze the antibacterial clinical pipeline. This review analyzes ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ antibacterial agents and modulators in clinical development current on 30 June 2021 with activity against the WHO priority pathogens, mycobacteria and Clostridioides difficile. Since 2017, 12 new antibacterial drugs have been approved globally, but only vaborbactam belongs to a new antibacterial class. Also innovative is the cephalosporin derivative cefiderocol, which incorporates an iron-chelating siderophore that facilitates Gram-negative bacteria cell entry. Overall, there were 76 antibacterial agents in clinical development (45 traditional and 31 non-traditional) with 28 in Phase 1, 32 in Phase 2, 12 in Phase 3 and four under regulatory evaluation. Forty-one out of 76 (54%) targeted WHO priority pathogens, 16 (21%) against mycobacteria, 15 (20%) against C. difficile and 4 (5%) are non-traditional agents with broad spectrum effects. Nineteen of the 76 antibacterial agents have new pharmacophores and four of these have new modes of actions not previously exploited by marketed antibacterial drugs. Despite there being 76 antibacterial clinical candidates, this analysis indicated that there were still relatively few clinically differentiated antibacterial agents in late-stage clinical development, especially against critical Priority Pathogens. We believe that future antibacterial R&D should focus on the development of innovative and clinically differentiated candidates that have clear and feasible progression pathways to the market.

Inadequate dose selection for confirmatory trials is currently still one of the most challenging issues in drug development, as illustrated by high rates of late‐stage attritions in clinical development and postmarketing commitments required by regulatory institutions. In an effort to shift the current paradigm in dose and regimen selection and highlight the availability and usefulness of well‐established and regulatory‐acceptable methods, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collaboration with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association (EFPIA) hosted a multistakeholder workshop on dose finding (London 4–5 December 2014). Some methodologies that could constitute a toolkit for drug developers and regulators were presented. These methods are described in the present report: they include five advanced methods for data analysis (empirical regression models, pharmacometrics models, quantitative systems pharmacology models, MCP‐Mod, and model averaging) and three methods for study design optimization (Fisher information matrix (FIM)‐based methods, clinical trial simulations, and adaptive studies). Pairwise comparisons were also discussed during the workshop; however, mostly for historical reasons. This paper discusses the added value and limitations of these methods as well as challenges for their implementation. Some applications in different therapeutic areas are also summarized, in line with the discussions at the workshop. There was agreement at the workshop on the fact that selection of dose for phase III is an estimation problem and should not be addressed via hypothesis testing. Dose selection for phase III trials should be informed by well‐designed dose‐finding studies; however, the specific choice of method(s) will depend on several aspects and it is not possible to recommend a generalized decision tree. There are many valuable methods available, the methods are not mutually exclusive, and they should be used in conjunction to ensure a scientifically rigorous understanding of the dosing rationale.

No abstract

No abstract

During the last 10 years the European Medicines Agency (EMA) organized a number of workshops on modeling and simulation, working towards greater integration of modeling and simulation (M&S) in the development and regulatory assessment of medicines. In the 2011 EMA – European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) Workshop on Modelling and Simulation, European regulators agreed to the necessity to build expertise to be able to review M&S data provided by companies in their dossier. This led to the establishment of the EMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group (MSWG). Also, there was agreement reached on the need for harmonization on good M&S practices and for continuing dialog across all parties. The MSWG acknowledges the initiative of the EFPIA Model‐Informed Drug Discovery and Development (MID3) group in promoting greater consistency in practice, application, and documentation of M&S and considers the paper is an important contribution towards achieving this objective.