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.

Background: Historically, neonatal therapeutic interventions were derived from adult therapeutics, and tragedies resulting from this approach have demonstrated differences in the pathophysiologic and developmental processes between neonates and older patients. Over the past 3 decades, researchers and collaborative research networks have made progress in the systematic evaluation of neonatal therapies, yet most neonatal therapeutic products have been incompletely assessed for safety and efficacy, and remain unlabeled and unapproved., Approach: This work describes the legislative initiatives that have stimulated an increase in pediatric and neonatal studies. It highlights examples of successful neonatal drug studies that have resulted in informative neonatal labeling changes, as well as studies that have produced incomplete information. Strategies that support the design of successful studies, including targeting specific subpopulations, modeling and simulation to inform dose selection, innovative design strategies, biomarkers, and endpoints are discussed. Multi-stakeholder consortia such as the International Neonatal Consortium (INC), are working to improve the tools needed for the development of neonatal therapies. These research tools may be used by trial networks to inform consistent and efficient multicenter studies., Conclusion: More data are needed to support safe and effective use of drugs in neonates, and to obtain these data, a thorough understanding of pathophysiology, drug disposition, biomarkers, and clinically-meaningful endpoints is required. This information will be derived from clinical trials, registries, real-world evidence, and the medical literature. Collaboration of consortia and the development of research networks are essential to achieving these goals., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.org.)

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.

Creation and clearance of pharmaceutical trademarks continues to be one of the most difficult and challenging areas of trademark law. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently initiated a 2-year Pilot Program under Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) IV. The intent of the program is to enable participating pharmaceutical firms to evaluate proposed pharmaceutical marks and submit the data generated from those evaluations to the FDA for review. Submitting a trademark to the FDA warrants questions: What supporting data is needed and accepted when proposing a mark? What issues might arise, and how can they be averted? In a recent Thomson Reuters on-demand webinar (http://science.thomsonreuters.com/news/2010-02/8580404/), a group of renowned experts in the field of trademark development review the FDA pilot program, outline the requirements for submission and discuss what the changes will mean in clearing new pharmaceutical marks. They also present various approaches to trademark development and evaluation in light of the FDA's views., (Copyright (c) 2010 Prous Science, S.A.U. or its licensors. All rights reserved.)

Pediatric studies have resulted in changes in the dose of many medications given to children and an increased awareness of safety issues. An additional 6 months of pediatric exclusivity legislated under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act of 1997 for pediatric studies undertaken in response to written requests from the FDA have stimulated the conduct of a large number of studies.

This paper provides a consumer's perspective on an important issue that has a profound impact on all of us: the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act of 1997. In addition, it provides some background information on the National Consumers League, an organization that promotes consumer safety and protection with the FDA and its predecessors.