FDA's Expedited Approval Mechanisms for New Drug Products.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kepplinger EE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4326266 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
FDA's Expedited Approval Mechanisms for New Drug Products.
Biotechnology law report 20150201 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGeneric drugs are cost-effective versions of brand-name drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following proof of pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence. Generic drugs are widely prescribed by physicians, although there is disagreement over the clinical comparability of generic drugs to brand-name drugs within the physician community. The objective of this survey was to assess physicians' perceptions of generic drugs and the generic drug approval process.Methods and findingsA survey was administered to a national sample of primary care internists and specialists between August 2014 and January 2015. In total, 1,152 physicians comprising of internists with no reported specialty certification and those with specialty certification in hematology, infectious diseases, and endocrinology were surveyed. The survey assessed physicians' perceptions of the FDA's generic drug approval process, as well as their experiences prescribing six generic drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 using product-specific approval pathways and selected comparator drugs. Among 718 respondents (62% response rate), a majority were comfortable with the FDA's process in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of generic drugs overall (91%) and with letting the FDA determine which tests were necessary to determine bioequivalence in a particular drug (92%). A minority (13-26%) still reported being uncomfortable prescribing generic drugs approved using product-specific pathways. Overall, few physicians heard reports of concerns about generic versions of the study drugs or their comparators, with no differences between the two groups. Physicians tended to hear about concerns about the safety or effectiveness of generic drugs from patients, pharmacists, and physician colleagues.ConclusionsPhysicians hold largely positive views of the FDA's generic drug approval process even when some questioned the performance of certain generic drugs in comparison to brand-name drugs. Better education about the generic drug approval process and standards may alleviate concerns among the physician community and support the delivery of cost-effective health care.
| S-EPMC5074566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the use of special expedited development and review pathways at the US Food and Drug Administration over the past two decades.DesignCohort study.SettingFDA approved novel therapeutics between 1987 and 2014.PopulationPublicly available sources provided each drug's year of approval, their innovativeness (first in class versus not first in class), World Health Organization Anatomic Therapeutic Classification, and which (if any) of the FDA's four primary expedited development and review programs or designations were associated with each drug: orphan drug, fast track, accelerated approval, and priority review.Main outcome measuresLogistic regression models evaluated trends in the proportion of drugs associated with each of the four expedited development and review programs. To evaluate the number of programs associated with each approved drug over time, Poisson models were employed, with the number of programs as the dependent variable and a linear term for year of approval. The difference in trends was compared between drugs that were first in class and those that were not.ResultsThe FDA approved 774 drugs during the study period, with one third representing first in class agents. Priority review (43%) was the most prevalent of the four programs, with accelerated approval (9%) the least common. There was a significant increase of 2.6% per year in the number of expedited review and approval programs granted to each newly approved agent (incidence rate ratio 1.026, 95% confidence interval 1.017 to 1.035, P<0.001), and a 2.4% increase in the proportion of drugs associated with at least one such program (odds ratio 1.024, 95% confidence interval 1.006 to 1.043, P=0.009). Driving this trend was an increase in the proportion of approved, non-first in class drugs associated with at least one program for drugs (P=0.03 for interaction).ConclusionsIn the past two decades, drugs newly approved by the FDA have been associated with an increasing number of expedited development or review programs. Though expedited programs should be strictly limited to drugs providing noticeable clinical advances, this trend is being driven by drugs that are not first in class and thus potentially less innovative.
| S-EPMC4580726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Corrado Barbui and Irene Bighelli question the current rules governing registration of new medicines in Europe, using the example of psychiatric drugs, and argue that the concept of absolute efficacy should be replaced by the concept of added value whereby evidence from studies comparing a new product with an active comparator should guide the drug approval process. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
| S-EPMC3797138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn situations of unmet medical need or in the interests of public health, expedited approval pathways, including conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) and accelerated assessment (AA), speed up European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorisation recommendations for medicinal products. CMAs are based on incomplete benefit-risk assessment data and authorisation remains conditional until regulator-imposed confirmatory postmarketing measures are fulfilled. For products undergoing AA, complete safety and efficacy data should be available, and postauthorisation measures may include only standard requirements of risk management and pharmacovigilance plans. In the pivotal trials supporting products assessed by expedited pathways, surrogate endpoints reduce drug development time compared with waiting for the intended clinical outcomes. Whether surrogate endpoints supporting products authorised through CMA and AA pathways reliably predict clinical benefits of therapy has not been studied systematically. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which surrogate endpoints are used and to assess whether their validity had been confirmed according to published hierarchies.Methods and findingsWe used European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to identify the primary endpoints in the pivotal trials supporting products authorised through CMA or AA pathways during January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2018. We excluded products that were vaccines, topical, reversal, or bleeding prophylactic agents or withdrawn within the study time frame. Where pivotal trials reported surrogate endpoints, we conducted PubMed searches for evidence of validity for predicting clinical outcomes. We used 2 published hierarchies to assess validity level. Surrogates with randomised controlled trials supporting the surrogate-clinical outcome relationship were rated as 'validated'. Fifty-one products met the inclusion criteria; 26 underwent CMAs, and 25 underwent AAs. Overall, 26 products were for oncology indications, 10 for infections, 8 for genetic disorders, and 7 for other systems disorders. Five products (10%), all AAs, were authorised based on pivotal trials reporting clinical outcomes, and 46 (90%) were authorised based on surrogate endpoints. No studies were identified that validated the surrogate endpoints. Among a total of 49 products with surrogate endpoints reported, most were rated according to the published hierarchies as being 'reasonably likely' (n = 30; 61%) or of having 'biological plausibility' (n = 46; 94%) to predict clinical outcomes. EPARs did not consistently explain the nature of the pivotal trial endpoints supporting authorisations, whether surrogate endpoints were validated or not, or describe the endpoints to be reported in the confirmatory postmarketing studies. Our study has limitations: we may have overlooked relevant validation studies; the findings apply to 2 expedited pathways and may not be generalisable to products authorised through the standard assessment pathway.ConclusionsThe pivotal trial evidence supporting marketing authorisations for products granted CMA or AA was based dominantly on nonvalidated surrogate endpoints. EPARs and summary product characteristic documents, including patient information leaflets, need to state consistently the nature and limitations of endpoints in pivotal trials supporting expedited authorisations so that prescribers and patients appreciate shortcomings in the evidence about actual clinical benefit. For products supported by nonvalidated surrogate endpoints, postauthorisation measures to confirm clinical benefit need to be imposed by the regulator on the marketing authorisation holders.
| S-EPMC6736244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Division of Applied Regulatory Science (DARS) moves new science into the drug review process and addresses emergent regulatory and public health questions for the Agency. By forming interdisciplinary teams, DARS conducts mission-critical research to provide answers to scientific questions and solutions to regulatory challenges. Staffed by experts across the translational research spectrum, DARS forms synergies by pulling together scientists and experts from diverse backgrounds to collaborate in tackling some of the most complex challenges facing FDA. This includes (but is not limited to) assessing the systemic absorption of sunscreens, evaluating whether certain drugs can convert to carcinogens in people, studying drug interactions with opioids, optimizing opioid antagonist dosing in community settings, removing barriers to biosimilar and generic drug development, and advancing therapeutic development for rare diseases. FDA tasks DARS with wide ranging issues that encompass regulatory science; DARS, in turn, helps the Agency solve these challenges. The impact of DARS research is felt by patients, the pharmaceutical industry, and fellow regulators. This article reviews applied research projects and initiatives led by DARS and conducts a deeper dive into select examples illustrating the impactful work of the Division.
| S-EPMC9893027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Expedited development programs for biological products to be used in the treatment of serious conditions bring about challenges because of the compressed clinical development timeframes. As expedited development does not lessen the quality expectations, one challenge is providing adequate chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) information required to support approval of a biological product. In particular, the analytical comparability and, in some cases, pharmacokinetic comparability studies needed to bridge the clinical material to the commercial material could delay submission of applications for life-saving medicines. While there is the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Topic Q5E guidance on assessing comparability of biological products before and after manufacturing changes, specific guidance on the emerging issue of conducting comparability exercises in the face of expedited drug development is lacking. In July 2019, clinical pharmacologists and product quality chemists from the US FDA and industry representatives convened an FDA workshop for a scientific exchange about considerations and challenges around conducting comparability exercises for expedited programs for biological products. This article highlights discussions from the workshop.
| S-EPMC7691403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this article, we present a new pharmacovigilance data mining technique based on the biclustering paradigm, which is designed to identify drug groups that share a common set of adverse events (AEs) in the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A taxonomy of biclusters is developed, revealing that a significant number of bona fide adverse drug event (ADE) biclusters have been identified. Statistical tests indicate that it is extremely unlikely that the bicluster structures thus discovered, as well as their content, could have arisen by mere chance. Some of the biclusters classified as indeterminate provide support for previously unrecognized and potentially novel ADEs. In addition, we demonstrate the potential importance of the proposed methodology in several important aspects of pharmacovigilance such as providing insight into the etiology of ADEs, facilitating the identification of novel ADEs, suggesting methods and a rationale for aggregating terminologies, highlighting areas of focus, and providing an exploratory tool for data mining.
| S-EPMC3282185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical companies and other trial sponsors must submit certain trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The validity of these results is unclear.PurposeTo validate results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov against publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews on Drugs@FDA.Data sourcesClinicalTrials.gov (registry and results database) and Drugs@FDA (medical and statistical reviews).Study selection100 parallel-group, randomized trials for new drug approvals (January 2013 to July 2014) with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov (15 March 2015).Data extraction2 assessors extracted, and another verified, the trial design, primary and secondary outcomes, adverse events, and deaths.ResultsMost trials were phase 3 (90%), double-blind (92%), and placebo-controlled (73%) and involved 32 drugs from 24 companies. Of 137 primary outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, 134 (98%) had corresponding data at Drugs@FDA, 130 (95%) had concordant definitions, and 107 (78%) had concordant results. Most differences were nominal (that is, relative difference <10%). Primary outcome results in 14 trials could not be validated. Of 1927 secondary outcomes from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA mentioned 1061 (55%) and included results data for 367 (19%). Of 96 trials with 1 or more serious adverse events in either source, 14 could be compared and 7 had discordant numbers of persons experiencing the adverse events. Of 62 trials with 1 or more deaths in either source, 25 could be compared and 17 were discordant.LimitationUnknown generalizability to uncontrolled or crossover trial results.ConclusionPrimary outcome definitions and results were largely concordant between ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA. Half the secondary outcomes, as well as serious events and deaths, could not be validated because Drugs@FDA includes only "key outcomes" for regulatory decision making and frequently includes only adverse event results aggregated across multiple trials.Primary funding sourceNational Library of Medicine.
| S-EPMC5028264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient derived organoids have emerged as robust preclinical models for screening anti-cancer therapeutics. Current 2D culturing methods do not provide physiological responses to therapeutics, therefore 3D models are being developed to better reproduce physiological responses. 3D culturing however often requires large initial cell populations and one week to one month to grow tumors ready for therapeutic testing. As a solution a 3D culturing system has been developed capable of producing physiologically relevant tumors in an expedited fashion while only requiring a small number of initial cancer cells. A bi-layer microfluidic system capable of facilitating active convective nutrient supply to populations of cancer cells facilitates expedited growth of cancer cells when starting with populations as small as 8 cells. The system has been shown to function well with adherent and non-adherent cell types by expediting cell growth by a factor ranging from 1.27 to 4.76 greater than growth under static conditions. Utilizing such an approach has enable to formation of tumors ready for therapeutic screening within 3 days and the ability to perform therapeutic screening within the microfluidic system is demonstrated. A mathematical model has been developed which allows for adjustments to be made to the dynamic delivery of nutrients in order to efficiently use culture media without excessive waste. We believe this work to be the first attempt to grow cancers in an expedited fashion utilizing only a convective nutrient supply within a microfluidic system which also facilitates on-device therapeutic screening. The developed microfluidic system and cancer growth method have the potential to offer improved drug screening for patients in clinical settings.
| S-EPMC6526058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn July 2018, the FDA first published a table listing all surrogate measures that it has used, and may accept for future use, in regulatory approval. However, the strength of surrogacy for those measures was not formally assessed. Using the case example of breast cancer, we aimed to evaluate the strength of correlation of surrogate measures listed in the FDA's Table with overall survival.MethodsThis cross-sectional study of the FDA's Table of Surrogate Endpoints was conducted in May 2019. All surrogate measures listed in the FDA table as appropriate for accelerated or regular approval for breast cancer were extracted. We identified studies evaluating the correlation of treatment benefit in the surrogate with treatment benefit in overall survival and extracted results from the correlation analysis.FindingsFive surrogate endpoints were listed for breast cancer in the FDA website: pathological complete response rates (pCR), event-free survival (EFS), disease-free survival (DFS), objective response rates (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS), of which pCR was listed as appropriate only for accelerated approval, while the rest were considered appropriate for accelerated or regular approval. No correlation study evaluated the correlation of treatment effects on EFS with that on OS. The results from correlation studies evaluating pCR, DFS, ORR, and PFS suggest that the treatment effects on none of these surrogate measures were strongly correlated with treatment effects on OS (r<0.85 or R2 < 0.7, except for DFS in HER2 positive early breast cancer (R2 = 0.75).InterpretationUsing breast cancer as an example, we evaluated the underlying evidence for the surrogate endpoints for solid tumors listed in the FDA's Table of Surrogate Endpoints and found weak or missing correlations of treatment effects on these surrogates with treatment effects on OS . Surrogate measures should be predictive of clinical benefit to be useful in supporting regular FDA approval.FundingWork on this project was funded by the Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kesselheim is also supported by the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
| S-EPMC7201012 | biostudies-literature