New Drug Application Approval Research Articles

Trends and Characteristics of New Drug Approvals in China, 2011–2021

BackgroundIn the past decade, the Chinese drug regulatory system has undergone many changes. A major reform starting in 2015 has significantly reshaped the regulatory processes. It was important to assess the impact of the reform on new drug approvals in China.MethodWe analyzed the temporal trends of regulatory characteristics of the new drugs approved by the Chinese regulatory agency from 2011 to 2021, using data collected in the Pharmcube database.ResultsA total of 353 new drugs were approved, including 220 small molecule drugs, 86 biological products and 47 vaccines. The annual number of new drug approvals increased dramatically since 2017, reaching a record high of 70 in 2021. The median NDA approval time was 15.4 months in 2017-2021, the shortest in the decade, and was significantly shorter than that in the pre-reform period. The newly instituted expedited pathways such as priority review (PR) and accelerated approval for urgently needed overseas drugs (UNOD) significantly reduced new drug application (NDA) approval times compared with standard review. For imported drugs, in 2017-2021, the median time difference between the first approval in the world and the approval in China was 5 years, representing significant “drug lag”. However, the proportion of the imported drugs approved in China within 3 years of its first foreign approval has increased to 24.4% in 2017-2021.ConclusionThe regulatory reform has produced significant, positive immediate outcomes in several metrics of drug regulatory approval. China’s regulatory system will continue to evolve as there still are many areas requiring further reform and improvement.

Prospective F-18 FDOPA PET Imaging Study in Human PD.

We present the findings of our final prospective study submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for New Drug Application (NDA) approval for the use of 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]fluoro-l-phenylalanine (F-18 FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for Parkinson's disease (PD). The primary aim was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of F-18 FDOPA PET in parkinsonian patients with respect to clinical standard-of-truth (SOT). Secondary outcomes included the inter-rater reliability, and correlation of quantitative measures for PET with dopaminergic status. In 68 parkinsonian subjects, F-18 FDOPA PET scan from 80 to 100 min was acquired following a CT scan. Scan images were presented to one expert in F-18 FDOPA image interpretation and two physicians with prior experience in I-123 FPCIT single-photon emission computed tomography image interpretation. Fifty-six subjects completed the study with a follow-up for SOT determination. Image readers were blind to the clinical/quantitative data; SOT clinician was blind to the image data. For 47 of the 56 patients, SOT was in agreement with the PET scan results. For nine patients, SOT suggested dopaminergic deficit, whereas the imaging showed normal uptake. The specificity and positive predictive values are 91% and 92%, respectively, suggesting high probability that those who test positive by the PET scan truly have dopaminergic degeneration. The sensitivity was 73%. Inter-rater agreement was 0.6-0.8 between the different readers. Our prospective study demonstrates high specificity and moderate sensitivity of F-18 FDOPA PET for PD. We received NDA approval in October 2019. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13139-022-00748-4.

Demographic Disparities in the Federal Drug Approval Process for Allergic Rhinitis Medications.

Demographic minorities are underrepresented in clinical trials. For the approval of new drug applications (NDAs), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asserted that clinical trial enrollment should represent the demographics of patients likely to receive the trial drug. The aim of this study is to assess the demographics of clinical trials included in NDAs and biologics license applications (BLAs) approved by the FDA since 1990 for allergic rhinitis (AR), a condition whose demographic prevalence mirrors the US population. Federal Freedom of Information Act requests were submitted to the US government to obtain documents related to all relevant NDAs and BLAs. The Drugs@FDA database was queried for all clinical trial documentation. Demographic data were extracted from clinical trials used to inform FDA approval for AR pharmacotherapies. Demographics were analyzed relative to national US Census data. Since 1990, 22 drugs have been approved for AR. The racial, ethnic, and sex composition of all included study populations differed significantly (p < 0.05) from the demographics of AR and from US Census data. Most NDAs and BLAs included overrepresentation of White participants and underrepresentation of Black, Asian, Pacific Island, Native American, and Hispanic participants. The patients enrolled in clinical trials used to inform FDA approval for AR pharmacotherapeutics do not represent the demographics of the United States or the demographics of AR. The clinical significance of unrepresentative demography between study and treatment populations has been examined for several medical disorders, but has not been studied for AR. 4 Laryngoscope, 133:755-763, 2023.

Do Expert Panelists Herd? Evidence from FDA Committees

We develop a structural model to address the question whether, and to what extent, expert panelists engage in herd behavior when voting on important policy questions. Our data comes from FDA advisory committees voting on questions concerning the approval of new drug applications. We utilize a change in the voting procedure from sequential to simultaneous voting to identify herding. Estimates suggest that around half of the panelists are willing to vote against their private assessment if votes from previous experts indicate otherwise and, on average, 9 percent of the sequential votes are actual herd-votes. Temporary committee members are more prone to herding than regular (standing) members. We find that simultaneous voting improves information aggregation given our estimates.

Analysis of Review Times for Recent 505(b)(2) Applications.

Annual review statistics released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a number of studies indicate that the review process improvements introduced under various versions of the Prescription Drug Use Fee Act (PDUFA) have been successful in decreasing average times for marketing approval of new molecular entities (NMEs). Similar statistics are not available, however, for non-NME new drug applications. These application types, such as those covered under section 505(b)(2) of the Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act, represent more than half of all new drug application (NDA) submissions annually and they are primarily based on previously approved drugs. To our knowledge, this is the first study to gather review statistics on 505(b)(2) designations. For this study, we analyzed total review times and review designations for 284 505(b)(2) NDA approvals between 2009 and 2015. Our results show that overall, the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway results in longer review time than for NMEs despite the intent of the 505(b)(2) designation to simplify and streamline the review process. Several illustrative examples and the implications are discussed. For drug developers, the important take home message is that-as for any program at the FDA-shorter review times and fewer FDA requirements under a 505(b)(2) designation should not be anticipated or expected. The study results serve as benchmark data providing insights into regulatory submission strategy and planning.

Connecting the Right Sites to Promising Trials

The fact that clinical trial planning bottlenecks have become a significant burden for the pharmaceutical industry is well-known. The number of New Drug Application approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is declining, despite greatly increased research and development (R&D) spending. A

Update on Amifampridine as a Drug of Choice in Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome

Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS) is a disabling autoimmune disorder involving impairment of neuromuscular transmission and producing serious muscle weakness, for which few effective medications are currently available. 3,4-diaminopyridine (3,4-DAP, INN/USAN: amifampridine) is the leading treatment for LEMS and has been available for over 25 years as an unapproved drug under treatment and expanded access protocols filed with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or from compounding pharmacies in the US. Administering the correct dose of 3,4-DAP is critical—overdosing can increase the risk for seizures and other adverse events, while underdosing can result in a substantial loss of efficacy or even treatment failure. Two recent studies have shown a wide variation in the 3,4-DAP content of compounded preparations. A tablet formulation of 3,4-DAP phosphate salt (FIRDAPSETM) has been licenced in Europe with orphan medicinal product status since 2009 and appears to be as efficacious as the base in relieving the symptoms of LEMS. The product has also received orphan drug status in the US and is currently being evaluated in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial to support New Drug Application (NDA) approval in the US. A recent safety trial in healthy volunteers using doses at and above normal levels has shown no effect on QT intervals, heart rate, or cardiac depolarization. Based on available clinical trial data, amifampridine phosphate was recently given Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA, which may enable fast-track NDA approval, thus increasing the potential for more patients with LEMS to receive an effective therapy.

Effect of research and development outsourcing on new drug approvals in the pharmaceutical industry

Abstract Objectives This paper studies the relationship between the outsourcing of research and development activities in the pharmaceutical industry and the approval of new drug applications by the US Food and Drug Administration. Methods We controlled for the unobserved company-specific effect and other econometric issues. Unique company-level pharmaceutical outsourcing data were used for the period from 1995–2006. Key findings and conclusions Results show that contemporaneous, one and two periods lagged outsourcing are more helpful than early outsourcing in getting successful new drug applications. The study also shows the importance of the sales figures of a company in relation to its likelihood of introducing a new drug onto the market.

Regulatory review intervals for ophthalmic new drug applications at the U.S. food and drug administration

Clinical Pharmacology &amp; Therapeutics (2003) 73, P64–P64; doi:

Impact of population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses on the drug development process: experience at Parke-Davis.

Continued scepticism about the benefits of population pharmacokinetics and/or population pharmacodynamics, here referred to collectively as the population approach, hampers its widespread application in drug development. At the same time the sources of this scepticism have not been clearly defined. In an attempt to capture and clearly define these concerns and to help communicate the value of the population approach in drug development at Parke-Davis we conducted a survey of customers within the company. The results of this survey are presented here. All drug development programmes conducted over the past 10 years that included a population approach in data analysis and interpretation were identified. A brief description of the population analysis was prepared together with a brief description of how the resulting information was used in each drug development programme. These synopses were forwarded to relevant members of each drug development team together with a survey designed to solicit opinions as to the relevance and impact of these analyses. The most frequent use of information derived from population-based analysis was in labelling. In all cases of drugs making to New Drug Application (NDA) submission the analyses resulted in information that was included in approved or proposed labelling. In almost half of the cases summarised here (5 of 12), population-based analysis was perceived to have resulted in information that influenced the direction of individual development programmes. In many of these cases the information was serendipitous. It is also noted that most of these analyses were not the result of clearly defined objectives and prospective analysis plans. Use of the population approach, even when applied retrospectively, may have value in complementing or supporting interpretation of other data collected during the course of a trial. Atypical systemic exposure is quickly and easily assessed for correlation with adverse events or exceptional efficacy in retrospective or ad hoc evaluation. Although we know of no direct evidence, it is possible that such use of population pharmacokinetic data has facilitated NDA review and approval by providing insight into the role of atypical systemic drug exposure in otherwise spurious events.

FDA's role in anesthetic drug development.

FDA's role in anesthetic drug development.

Initiatives to Speed New Drug Development and Regulatory Review: The Impact of FDA-Sponsor Conferences

Survey data were used to examine the effects that various factors may have on the length of the new drug development and approval processes. These factors include the use of formal conferences between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and drug manufacturers. Analyses were based on the type, number, and timing of formal FDA-sponsor meetings for new chemical entities (NCEs) approved from 1987 through 1995. The practice of holding formal conferences was widely applied; 91% of the NCEs were the subject of at least one conference during development or regulatory review, and 46% of the NCEs were the subject of at least three conferences. In addition to conferences, a number of other factors conjectured to have an effect on development and approval times were examined as explanatory factors in multiple regression analyses. The regression results for the new drug application (NDA) phase (NDA submission to NDA approval) indicated that pre-NDA meetings and NDA Days were associated with shorter approval times. ...

The New Drug Approvals of 1987, 1988, and 1989: Trends in Drug Development

The new drug approvals of 1987, 1988, and 1989 were analyzed to determine whether there are any emerging trends in the US drug development and review processes. Sixty-four new drugs were approved by the FDA during this period, of which 55 met the Center for the Study of Drug Development's definition of a new chemical entity (NEC). For the 55 NCEs, the mean length of the investigational new drug application (IND) phase (IND filing to NDA submission) was 5.2 years, the new drug application (NDA) phase (NDA submission to approval) was 2.9 years, and the total phase (IND filing to NDA approval) was 8.1 years. Nine of the 55 NCEs were classified by the FDA as 1A (important therapeutic gain), 15 were classified as 1B (modest gain), 29 were classified as 1C (little or no gain), and 2 were classified as 1AA (drugs to treat AIDS and AIDS-related conditions); 10 drugs were granted orphan status. The mean NDA phase for 1A drugs was 2.4 years; 1B drugs, 2.9 years; 1C drugs, 3.1 years; 1AA drugs, 1.4 years; and orphan drugs, 2.5 years. Forty-four of the 55 NCEs (80%) were available in foreign markets before US approval was given, with a mean of 6.5 years of prior marketing. These data are consistent with figures for previous years and suggest little change in the rate of new drug development and review in the United States.

Potassium Iodide as a Thyroid Blocker—Three Mile Island to Today

The Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear emergency in the U.S. in March 1979 marked the first occasion when use of potassium iodide (KI) was considered for thyroid blocking of the population in the vicinity of a potentially serious release of fission products from a nuclear power reactor. In face of a demand that could not be satisfied by commercial supplies of low-dose KI drug products from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration directed the manufacture and stockpiling of sufficient quantities of saturated solution of potassium iodide (SSKI) to provide protection for one million people in the event of a large-scale release of radioiodines. Although the drug was not used, the experience of producing, stockpiling, and making ready for use a large quantity of the drug resulted in significant public policy, regulatory, and logistical issues. A number of these issues have been resolved through scientific debate and consensus, development of official guidance regarding the proper role of KI in nuclear emergencies, and the approval of New Drug Applications for KI products specifically intended for thyroid blocking in nuclear emergencies. Other issues regarding broad-scale implementation of the guidelines remain today. This paper traces the history of the development and implementation of the use of KI from pre-TMI to the present.

The "Treatment IND"

A major activity occupying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for several years has been a rewrite of the agency's and regulations. These regulations govern pharmaceutical industry clinical testing of Investigational Drugs (IND) and the road to approval by the agency of a New Drug Application (NDA). Without an approved NDA, no may lawfully enter interstate commerce except for investigational purposes; with it, a pharmaceutical manufacturer has a government license to freely market and promote a drug in accordance with its FDA approved labeling. The key to obtaining NDA approval is a demonstration by the sponsor that the drug is both safe and effective, in the words of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof.' It is through the heavily regulated IND process and its three Phases of new drug testing that the sponsor seeks to develop the evidence necessary to satisfy the safe and effective NDA approval standard.

New indications for already-approved drugs: time trends for the new drug application review phase.

For 55 individual drugs, the time required for approval of the original new drug application (NDA) was compared with the time required for approval of supplemental NDAs. The mean time required for the original NDAs was 22.2 +/- 18.1 months; the mean for review of all 46 follow-on indications was similar (19.1 +/- 17.9 months). Since subsequent applications do not ordinarily require new assessment of clinical safety or animal toxicity studies, one would expect the subsequent applications to be processed more expeditiously. Such is not the case. The negative implications of these facts are discussed.

New drug development during and after a period of regulatory change: clinical research activity of major United States pharmaceutical firms, 1958 to 1979.

The 1962 drug amendments fundamentally changed the way in which U.S. pharmaceutical firms could test new drugs in man and receive New Drug Application (NDA) approval. Although it is well known that the amendments and associated events caused a profound decline in the annual number of new drugs receiving NDA approval, the amendments' effects on clinical research into new chemical entities (NCEs) have not been investigated because data were unavailable. To study this we requested drug development information dating back to 1958 from most major United States-owned pharmaceutical firms and obtained complete responses from nine. The results showed that the introduction rate of NCEs into human testing dropped sharply in the early 1960s and declined substantially thereafter. The number of NCEs entering human testing fell from a mean of 89 a year in 1958-1962, to 35 a year in 1963-1972 (a reduction of 61%), and to 17 a year in the last 5 years of the survey, 1975-1979--an overall reduction of 81%. The number of NDA approvals received by these firms fell sharply by 49% in the early 1960s and more slowly for 10 years thereafter, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. In the case of self-originated NCEs, the size of this later fall was 71%. Causes of these changes in NCE flow include the amendments and the events that prompted them; changes in scientific philosophy, standards, and state of the art; and economic factors.

New drug development by United States pharmaceutical firms with analyses of trends in the acquisition and origin of drug candidates, 1963-1979.

The average number of self-originated new chemical entities (NCEs) first tested in man by 39 United States-owned pharmaceutical firms in the 3-year period from 1977 to 1979 was 26 a year, approximately half the number investigated annually in the previous decade. Investigational New Drug (IND) Exemption filings on self-originated NCEs, but not those on acquired NCEs, were also comparatively low. Consequently, the contribution of self-originated NCEs to total IND filings fell from 81% in 1963 through 1975 to 68% in 1976 through 1979. (There was a similar decline, from 78% to 61%, in the proportion of compounds synthesized in the United States.) The relative increase in IND filings on acquired NCEs was greatest for smaller firms. By the late 1970s acquired NCEs accounted for almost 50% of the INDs filed by smaller firms, but only 10% to 25% of those filed by large and medium-sized firms. The importance of NCEs acquired from abroad has increased since the mid-1970s. The number of INDs filed on Japanese-originated NCEs rose from approximately one a year in 1963 through 1975 to an average of 3.5 a year in 1976 through 1979. Initial clinical testing of self-originated drugs abroad, which increased sharply in the early 1970s to reach a peak of 36% in 1976, declined to approximately 21% in 1977 through 1979. Self-originated drugs approved in 1977-1979 spent an average of 6 years in United States clinical testing and 2 in regulatory review, a total of 8 years from IND filing to NDA approval. The percentage of IND filings on self-originated NCEs that received New Drug Application (NDA) approval after 8 years or more was 9% overall, although ultimate success rates will be higher. There was a higher success rate for anti-infective drugs (17%) than for other pharmacologic categories (7%). For acquired NCEs, the overall approval rate was much larger (28%).