Search

Importance: US law requires testing of new drugs before approval to ensure that they provide a well-defined benefit that is commensurate with their risks. A major challenge for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to achieve an appropriate balance between rigorous testing and the need for timely approval of drugs that have benefits that outweigh their risks., Objective: To describe the evolution of laws and standards affecting drug testing, the use of new approval programs and standards, expansions of the role and authority of the FDA, and changes in the number of drugs approved from the 1980s to 2018., Evidence: Sources of evidence included principal federal laws and FDA regulations (1962-2018) and FDA databases of approved new drugs (1984-2018), generic drugs (1970-2018), biologics (1984-2018), and vaccines (1998-2018); special development and approval programs (Orphan drug [1984-2018], Fast-Track [1988-2018], Priority Review and its predecessors [1984-2018], Accelerated Approval [1992-2018], and Breakthrough Therapy [2012-2018]); expanded access (2010-2017) and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (2008-2018); and user fees paid to the FDA by industry (1993-2018)., Findings: From 1983 to 2018, legislation and regulatory initiatives have substantially changed drug approval at the FDA. The mean annual number of new drug approvals, including biologics, was 34 from 1990-1999, 25 from 2000-2009, and 41 from 2010-2018. New biologic product approvals increased from a median of 2.5 from 1990-1999, to 5 from 2000-2013, to 12 from 2014-2018. The median annual number of generic drugs approved was 136 from 1970 to the enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984; 284 from 1985 to the enactment of the Generic Drug User Fee Act in 2012; and 588 from 2013-2018. Prescription drug user fee funding expanded from new drugs and biologics in 1992 to generic and biosimilar drugs in 2012. The amount of Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees collected from industry increased from an annual mean of $66 million in 1993-1997 to $820 million in 2013-2017, and in 2018, user fees accounted for approximately 80% of the salaries of review personnel responsible for the approval of new drugs. The proportion of drugs approved with an Orphan Drug Act designation increased from 18% (55/304) in 1984-1995, to 22% (82/379) in 1996-2007, to 41% (154/380) in 2008-2018. Use of Accelerated Approval, Fast-Track, and Priority Review for new drugs has increased over time, with 81% (48/59) of new drugs benefiting from at least 1 such expedited program in 2018. The proportion of new approvals supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased from 80.6% in 1995-1997 to 52.8% in 2015-2017, based on 124 and 106 approvals, respectively, while the median number of patients studied did not change significantly (774 vs 816). FDA drug review times declined from more than 3 years in 1983 to less than 1 year in 2017, but total time from the authorization of clinical testing to approval has remained at approximately 8 years over that period., Conclusions and Relevance: Over the last 4 decades, the approval and regulation processes for pharmaceutical agents have evolved and increased in complexity as special programs have been added and as the use of surrogate measures has been encouraged. The FDA funding needed to implement and manage these programs has been addressed by expanding industry-paid user fees. The FDA has increasingly accepted less data and more surrogate measures, and has shortened its review times.

The R&D productivity of pharmaceutical firms has become an increasingly significant concern of industry, regulators, and policymakers. To address an important aspect of R&D performance, public and private data sources were used to estimate clinical phase transition and clinical approval probabilities for the pipelines of the 50 largest pharmaceutical firms (by sales) by 3 firms size groups (top 10 firms, top 11-20 firms, and top 21-50 firms). For self-originated compounds, the clinical approval success rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, and 18.4% for top 10 firms, top 11-20 firms, and top 21-50 firms, respectively. The results showing higher success rates for smaller firms were largely driven by outcomes for the small-molecule drugs. Adjustments for the relatively small differences in therapeutic class distributions across the firm size groups showed that the success rate for small-molecule self-originated drugs was 6% below average for top 10 firms and 17% above average for top 21-50 firms. Although success rates for small firms were higher, this advantage was offset to some degree by lower returns on approved drugs, suggesting different strategic objectives with regard to risk and reward by firm size.

We reviewed the regulatory history of the accelerated approval process and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experience with accelerated approval of oncology products from its initiation in December 11, 1992, to July 1, 2010. The accelerated approval regulations allowed accelerated approval of products to treat serious or life-threatening diseases based on surrogate endpoints that are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Failure to complete postapproval trials to confirm clinical benefit with due diligence could result in removal of the accelerated approval indication from the market. From December 11, 1992, to July 1, 2010, the FDA granted accelerated approval to 35 oncology products for 47 new indications. Clinical benefit was confirmed in postapproval trials for 26 of the 47 new indications, resulting in conversion to regular approval. The median time between accelerated approval and regular approval of oncology products was 3.9 years (range = 0.8-12.6 years) and the mean time was 4.7 years, representing a substantial time savings in terms of earlier availability of drugs to cancer patients. Three new indications did not show clinical benefit when confirmatory postapproval trials were completed and were subsequently removed from the market or had restricted distribution plans implemented. Confirmatory trials were not completed for 14 new indications. The five longest intervals from receipt of accelerated approval to July 1, 2010, without completion of trials to confirm clinical benefit were 10.5, 6.4, 5.5, 5.5, and 4.7 years. The five longest intervals between accelerated approval and successful conversion to regular approval were 12.6, 9.7, 8.1, 7.5, and 7.4 years. Trials to confirm clinical benefit should be part of the drug development plan and should be in progress at the time of an application seeking accelerated approval to prevent an ineffective drug from remaining on the market for an unacceptable time.

Biotecnological drugs represents the future treatment in medicine. Since the expiry of the patent of the fi rst approved biotech drug, "copying" and marketing of them can be offered by any other biotech company, these new medicines are known as biosimilar medicines. They are approved by the EMEA (European Medicines Evaluation Agency) through the European centralised procedure, the EMEA issued several stringent guidelines to approve a biosimilar drug on the European market, preclinical and clinical studies are necessary to asses the highest standards in quality, efficacy and patient safety. The World Health Organization has determined that biosimilar have the same INN than the original product., (Copyright © 2010 Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency was established in April 2003 by the merger of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Medical Devices Agency (MDA). This paper describes the scientific and organizational basis for the merger and describes the various challenges facing this new Agency.