Close

Ferrer to develop Lorediplon for insomnia with Ildong Pharmaceuticals and Ergomed Clinical Research

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...
- Advertisement -

A Phase IIa clinical study will test the efficacy, safety and tolerability profile

Ferrer, a privately-held Spanish pharmaceutical company, today announces that it has executed two agreements; with Ildong Pharmaceuticals Co Ltd, Korea and Ergomed Clinical Research Ltd, UK to support further clinical studies of Lorediplon in patients with insomnia.

Under the terms of the Ildong agreement, Ferrer will be eligible to receive payments from the Co-operation and License Agreement covering countries within East Asia, including South Korea, China and Japan. Ildong will be responsible for the costs and activities related to development and regulatory approvals in their territory.

Ferrer selected Ergomed as the clinical development organization to conduct the multicenter, multinational, randomized Phase IIa Lorediplon trial in insomnia. Under the terms of the agreement, Ergomed will assume a proportion of the clinical and regulatory costs of the Phase IIa trial in return for a share of future revenues received by Ferrer for Lorediplon in this indication.

“We are delighted to announce this collaboration with Ferrer,” said Ildong chairman and CEO, Jung-chi Lee, Ph.D. “We are ready to fully cooperate in order to improve quality of life for patients.”

“We are very pleased to co-invest with Ferrer in the development of Lorediplon, which has shown promising results in clinical trials to date,” said Miroslav Reljanovic, M.D., CEO of Ergomed. “Our seventh co-development agreement establishes us as one of the leading worldwide companies completing deals under this innovative model.”

“We look forward to working with our partners Ergomed and Ildong on the development of Lorediplon as a treatment for patients with underserved needs in insomnia and continue to seek additional partners to further the clinical development and commercialisation of Lorediplon in other territories’” said Ferrer COO, Antoni Villaro Martin.

“Insomnia remains a common sleep disorder that has both a significant impact on an individual’s quality of life and a broader impact on society, in terms of reduced productivity and associated healthcare costs,” said Fernando Garcia Alonso, CSO at Ferrer. “Lorediplon is the first product to enter clinical trials from our CNS discovery program, the aim of which is to deliver differentiated products targeting underserved needs in insomnia and related sleep disorders.”

About the Phase IIa study
The trial is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over, dose finding study of two doses of Lorediplon in adult patients with primary insomnia. The effects of Lorediplon (5 and 10 mg) will be compared to a placebo and to zolpidem. The aim of the study is to evaluate the appropriate effective dose of Lorediplon, to characterize the efficacy in sleep maintenance and sleep onset and to evaluate any next day hangover effect in adult patients with primary insomnia. The trial is anticipated to be initiated in the second quarter of 2014. It will involve approximately 130 patients at 12 centres in three countries (further details will be made available at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

About Lorediplon
Lorediplon is a novel, longer acting non-BZD hypnotic drug that modulates the GABAa receptor. Compared to other non-BZD receptor agonists (such as zolpidem), Lorediplon has demonstrated in preclinical and clinical studies a potent hypnotic profile and extended systemic half-life, properties that could confer potential clinical benefits in terms of sleep maintenance and sleep architecture. A recent Phase I pharmacodynamic study with Lorediplon (in a phase advanced model of insomnia) demonstrated the orally available compound has a best-in-class efficacy profile in terms of sleep maintenance and sleep quality when compared to market leader zolpidem. In this model Lorediplon demonstrated dose related clinical benefits in measured sleep parameters that were either comparable to or exceeded zolpidem in terms of the duration and quality of sleep that subjects achieved.  

Lorediplon is the subject of a number of granted and pending patents and is available for further worldwide development and commercialisation from Ferrer.

About Insomnia
Insomnia is a common sleep disorder characterized by difficulty in the initiation and/or maintenance of sleep, or abnormalities in the duration or restorative quality of sleep. While the prevalence of insomnia varies, it has been estimated that transient insomnia lasting less than two weeks affects up to 80 per cent of the population on a yearly basis, while chronic insomnia affects 15 per cent of the population. Sleep maintenance insomnia, or the inability to stay asleep throughout the night, is significantly more prevalent than sleep onset insomnia.

Insomnia is often accompanied or caused by other comorbid conditions and is associated with significant night-time and daytime symptoms, including tiredness, difficulty concentrating and irritability as well as increased healthcare utilization and reduced work productivity, lower quality of life and impairments of memory, mood and cognitive function.

Currently, the major hypnotic drugs on the market are gamma-Amino Butyric Acid A (GABAa) receptor modulators. They potentiate GABA, the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain, facilitate sleep onset and sometimes total sleep time but their use is associated with changes in sleep architecture, decrease in psychomotor and cognitive functioning, dependency, withdrawal effects, increased incidence of falls and apnea.

About Ferrer
Founded in 1959, Ferrer is a privately-held Spanish pharmaceutical company. It is present in more than 90 countries, with 23 international affiliates. Ferrer is active in the pharmaceutical, health, fine chemicals and food sectors; key areas for contributing to people’s health and quality of life. The main therapeutic areas covered by Ferrer’s pharmaceutical production are dermatology, cardiovascular, CNS, cancer, gastrointestinal, analgesics, bone metabolism, anti-infectives, immunology, diagnostics, OTC and dermocosmetics. For more information, visit: http://www.ferrergrupo.com

About Ildong
Ildong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., based in Seoul, Korea, is a leading Korean company focused on the development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals and OTC products. Ildong, founded in 1941, is known to have leading expertise in various therapeutic categories, including neurology, antibiotics, gastrointestinal, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular and oncology. For more information, visit: http://www.ildong.com

About Ergomed
Ergomed is a clinical development company working with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies specializing in therapeutics for oncology, neurology and immunology. Ergomed also engages in shared risk ventures through co-development agreements. With its global infrastructure in Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North America, Ergomed offers cost effective and efficient drug development. For further information, visit: http://www.ergomed-cro.com

 

 

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Danaher Prepares to Introduce Advanced AI-Powered Laboratory

In a significant step for pharmaceutical research, Danaher has...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »