Search

Implementation of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA I) as part of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 (Generic Drug User Fee Amendments. https://www.fda.gov/industry/fda-user-fee-programs/generic-drug-user-fee-amendments) successfully allowed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to modernize review of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with goal dates. The goal of this study was to assess the success of GDUFA I in decreasing ANDA time to approval and the number of review cycles across the five fiscal years of GDUFA I. Results of this study underscore FDA's continuous progress within its generic drug program and highlight the ongoing collaborative communication process between FDA and ANDA applicants that must continue for the timely approval of high-quality, safe, and effective generic drugs for the American public.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health (FDA/CDRH) has recently published several in vivo test guidance documents that mention refinements, reductions, or replacement animal testing strategies to facilitate the leveraging of data from large animal safety tests for conventional rodent testing. In response to the recently enacted Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act Section 907, which facilitates expedited access to novel therapies commonly described as Breakthrough Therapy Designation, FDA/CDRH has discussed efficient regulatory strategies for first-in-human investigation, including early feasibility study guidance. Large gains in humane care and translational research could also be attained by examples in FDA’s Guidance for the Use of International Organization for Standardization 10993-1, which states that large animal safety studies may be considered as replacement rodent tests if the scientific principles, methods, and end points (SPME) are considered and applied. This article discusses SPME for the replacement of conventional rodent testing by the inclusion and integration of clinical, diagnostic, and pathologic data obtained from well-designed large animal studies. The recommendations include consideration for study designs that utilize methods for an overall more comprehensive interrogation of animal systems.

Objective To raise pharmacist awareness about the needs and concerns of our patients with visual impairment and to review useful strategies to foster medication adherence. Summary As patient-centered pharmacists, we need to understand the challenges faced by our patients with low vision and tailor pharmaceutical care to best fit their needs. Evidence-based best practices in labeling and written communication have been developed by the American Foundation for the Blind in partnership with the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists. These recommendations include the use of specific font styles, minimum font size, and other standards known to enhance usability for those with limited vision. Recent advances in assistive technologies such as audio output and object recognition software can be used to ease the medication-taking process and effectively communicate important drug and safety information in a manner that can be understood by those with low vision. In July 2012, the Prescription Accessible Drug Labeling Promotion Act of 2012 (HR 4087) was signed into law. This new legislation is an addition to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, which required the development and ultimate implementation by pharmacies of national best practices intended to improve the accessibility of prescription drug labeling for the visually impaired. Conclusion As a patient-centered profession, we need to advocate for our patients with special needs by partnering with government and patient groups to support and enact legislation intended to enhance people's ability to adhere to drug therapy.

Pediatric drug development in the United States has grown under the current regulations made permanent by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012. Over 1200 pediatric studies have now been submitted to the US FDA, but there is still a high rate of failure to obtain pediatric labeling for the indication pursued. Pediatric oncology represents special problems in that the disease is most often dissimilar to any cancer found in the adult population. Therefore, the development of drug dosing in pediatric oncology patients represents a special challenge. Potential approaches to pediatric dosing in oncology patients include extrapolation of efficacy from adult studies in those few cases where the disease is similar, inclusion of adolescent patients in adult trials when possible, and bridging the adult dose to the pediatric dose. An analysis of the recommended phase 2 dose for 40 molecularly targeted agents in pediatric patients provides some insight into current practices. Increased knowledge of tumor biology and efforts to identify and validate molecular targets and genetic abnormalities that drive childhood cancers can lead to increased opportunities for precision medicine in the treatment of pediatric cancers.

Early evidence suggests that provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 are associated with reductions in the total number of new national drug shortages. However, drugs frequently used in acute unscheduled care such as the care delivered in emergency departments may be increasingly affected by shortages. Our estimates, based on reported national drug shortages from 2001 to 2014 collected by the University of Utah’s Drug Information Service, show that although the number of new annual shortages has decreased since the act’s passage, half of all drug shortages in the study period involved acute care drugs. Shortages affecting acute care drugs became increasingly frequent and prolonged compared with non–acute care drugs (median duration of 242 versus 173 days, respectively). These results suggest that the drug supply for many acutely and critically ill patients in the United States remains vulnerable despite federal efforts.

The US Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) was signed on 9 July 2012. This law created a new "breakthrough therapy" (BT) designation program for investigational drugs and biologics intended to treat a serious disease and having "preliminary clinical evidence [that] indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial clinical improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints."(1) Many questions have been posed about the impact of this new program on drug development.

In July 2012, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). The Advancing Breakthrough Therapies for Patients Act was incorporated into a Title of FDASIA to expedite clinical development of new, potential “breakthrough” drugs or treatments that show dramatic responses in early-phase studies. Using this regulatory pathway, once a promising new drug candidate is designated as a “Breakthrough Therapy”, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and sponsor would collaborate to determine the best path forward to abbreviate the traditional three-phase approach to drug development. The breakthrough legislation requires that an FDA guidance be drafted that details specific requirements of the bill to aid FDA in implementing requirements of the Act. In this article, we have proposed criteria to define a product as a Breakthrough Therapy, and discussed critical components of the development process that would require flexibility in order to enable expedited development of a Breakthrough Therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 19(16); 4297–304. ©2013 AACR.