Center For Drug Evaluation And Research Research Articles

Material Trends and Clinical Costings in Systematically Identified CDER‐Approved Nanomedicines

AbstractResearch into mechanisms and potential applications of nanomaterials in medicine has expanded steadily in recent decades, with increasing translational focus. Development costs, including for clinical trials, are often cited as factors limiting the translational viability of novel nanomedicines, especially compared to small new molecular entities (NMEs) and therapeutic biologics. Yet, to date, there has been no systematic investigation into the clinical programs or costs of translating and commercializing nanomedicines, nor a comparison to NMEs and therapeutic biologics, to support these claims. Here, nanomedicines approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) from 2011 to 2023 are systematically identified and categorized. Nanomedicines were identified as formulations where submicron particle size contributes to product function. Like biologics and NMEs, nanomedicines are most frequently approved for oncological indications. Notably, all anti‐cancer nanomedicines are indicated to treat orphan diseases, which is representative of the potential for nanomedicines to occupy pharmaceutical niches in treating diseases affecting smaller patient cohorts. The median estimated cost of pivotal trials for nanomedicines is 47% that of biologics and NMEs approved in the same timeframe. The findings indicate higher manufacturing costs in nanomedicine development may be mitigated by savings elsewhere, increasing translational viability.

Understanding the Regulatory Pathways Used to Develop, Evaluate, Authorize, and Approve New Drugs and Vaccines in the United States.

The United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the safety and quality of drugs and vaccines that are used in the U.S. Administration of the FDA falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The regulatory oversight of the FDA is complex and comprehensive, requiring the various roles and responsibilities to be divided across six main centers. The activities of two of these centers, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) are the primary focus of this review.

Ensuring safety and efficacy in combination products: regulatory challenges and best practices.

Combination products, amalgamating drugs, biologics, and medical devices, have revolutionized the healthcare landscape with their potential for innovative therapies. However, the intersection of diverse components within these products presents a complex regulatory environment, demanding rigorous attention to safety and efficacy. This article delves into the intricate landscape of regulatory considerations, safety, and efficacy assessments pertaining to combination products-a category at the intersection of drugs, devices, and biologics. The regulatory framework, primarily governed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), necessitates a nuanced classification determining the regulatory pathway. Collaboration between diverse regulatory centers, such as the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), underscores the integrated approach required for these innovative healthcare solutions. Safety considerations unravel the potential risks and adverse events associated with combining diverse components, emphasizing the need for robust risk assessment and mitigation strategies. The evaluation of efficacy involves sophisticated methodologies, clinical trials, and post-market surveillance, with recent advancements incorporating digital technologies. This comprehensive exploration aims to contribute to the evolving understanding and best practices in the regulatory and scientific realms, fostering collaboration and innovation in the development and assessment of combination products.

Clinical pharmacology considerations for first-in-human clinical trials for enzyme replacement therapy.

Inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) such as lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) are conditions caused by deficiency of one or more key enzymes, cofactors, or transporters involved in a specific metabolic pathway. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) provides an exogenous source of the affected enzyme and is one of the most effective treatment options for IEMs. In this paper, we review the first-in-human (FIH) protocols for ERT drug development programs supporting 20 Biologic License Applications (BLA) approved by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the period of May 1994 to September 2023. We surveyed study design elements across these FIH protocols including study population, dosage form, dose selection, treatment duration, immunogenicity, biomarkers, and study follow-up. A total of 18 FIH trials from 20 BLAs were identified and of those, 72% (13/18) used single ascending dose (SAD) and/or multiple ascending dose (MAD) study design, 83% (15/18) had a primary objective of assessing the safety and tolerability, 72% (13/18) included clinical endpoint assessments, and 94% (17/18) included biomarker assessments as secondary or exploratory endpoints. Notably, the majority of ERT products tested the approved route of administration and the approved dose was tested in 83% (15/18) of FIH trials. At last, we offer considerations for the design of FIH studies.

503 Examination of Labeling for Geriatric Sub-Populations in Recently Approved Type 2 Diabetes Drugs

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To assess labels of drugs approved for Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) for the inclusion of geriatric sub-population data (ages 65-74, 75-84, ≥85) since January 1, 2013, in accordance with international guidance and US regulations in recognition of an aging populations and global demographics. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Utilizing FDA Guidance for Industry: Labeling for Human Prescription and Biological Products - Implementing the Physician’s Labeling Rule (PLR) Content and Format Requirements and the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements (ICH) E7 guidance “Studies in Support of Special Populations: Geriatrics” as reference for assessing labels. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) new drugs/biologic approvals database was filtered for drugs approved between Jan. 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2022 with approved T2D indications. Examined original drug labels and supplements from Drugs@FDA for geriatric use efficacy and safety wording in Section 8.5 (Use in Specific Populations, Geriatric Use), for labels. Subpopulation data in labeling for ages 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 was analyzed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Seven T2D drugs (Trulicity, Tresiba, Adlyxin, Ozempic, Steglatro, Kerendia, Mounjaro) approved within the specified time period were analyzed. In the current examination, all labels contain information regarding efficacy differences between ages 65+ and 75+, however, none contain information on efficacy for ≥85 populations. Four of the seven drugs have been updated with increased data from further efficacy trials for older adults conducted after initial approval. The remaining three drugs have only been reworded, or not changed at all, with no further efficacy trials conducted. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This research shows the gap in representation of older adults in clinical trial data and T2D drugs’ labeling. Despite having a higher usage of T2D drugs compared to the general population, older adults and especially the oldest-old (≥85) are underrepresented. Additional demographic requirements ensuring diversity in clinical trials is needed.

2023 in review: FDA approvals of new medicines

An analysis of all new entities approved by both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) identified the approval of 69 new entities in the year 2023, 50 % more than in the previous year. Oncology drugs tied with congenital and infectious diseases drugs for the most approvals. Although orphan and priority approvals continued at a high pace, the rate of fast-track approvals continued to decline. The rate of industry consolidation also picked up again after decreasing slightly in 2022.

Novel Drug Approvals 2023

his article provides an overview of the novel drugs approved for 2023. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) provides standards to drug developers. The CDER sets standards for required data needed in the drug development and application process. Every year a variety of new drugs and biological products are approved. Some are new molecular compounds while others are structurally similar to those already on the market. Therefore, products may not have been used in medical practice previously while others have already been used in practice. This article highlights medications that are new in medical practice over the last year and bring attention to the numerous advancements in medicine. From January 1, 2023, to December 6, 2023, the FDA has approved fifty-three novel drugs highlighted in Table 1. Hematology and Oncology accounted for the majority of drug approvals. Four medications are discussed in detail based on their use in the outpatient setting.

Creating a Roadmap to Quantitative Systems Pharmacology-Informed Rare Disease Drug Development: A Workshop Report.

One of the goals of the Accelerating Rare Disease Cures (ARC) program in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the development and use of regulatory and scientific tools, including drug/disease modeling, dose selection, and translational medicine tools. To facilitate achieving this goal, the FDA in collaboration with the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) hosted a virtual public workshop on May 11, 2023, entitled "Creating a Roadmap to Quantitative Systems Pharmacology-Informed Rare Disease Drug Development." This workshop engaged scientists from pharmaceutical companies, academic institutes, and the FDA to discuss the potential utility of quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) in rare disease drug development and identify potential challenges and solutions to facilitate its use. Here, we report the main findings from this workshop, highlight the key takeaways, and propose a roadmap to facilitate the use of QSP in rare disease drug development.

Investigation of Immunogenicity Assessment of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies in the United States.

Immunogenicity is critical for biologics. However, reference biologics labeling documents do not necessarily mention immunogenicity impact, rendering the development of biosimilars more challenging. We aimed to investigate the comparative assessment of immunogenicity profiles between biosimilars and their respective reference biologics in the review reports of the biosimilar monoclonal antibody applications approved by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as of March 13, 2022, covering 22 applications approved between April 5, 2016, and December 17, 2021. The maximum differences in anti-drug antibody (ADA) and neutralizing antibody (NAb) incidences between biosimilars and reference products mostly fell within ± 15% (-13.6% to 12%) and ± 20% (-17.4% to 17.1%, except extreme values of -23.4% and 66.7%), respectively. In comparison with antineoplastic agents, more immunosuppressants had ADA-positive (11/11, 100.0% vs. 8/10, 80.0%)/NAb-positive (11/11, 100.0% vs. 3/10, 30.0%) subjects, and the distribution of the aforementioned incidence differences was wider. The investigated biosimilars with available data for analysis demonstrated a high degree of consistency with their reference products in terms of the impact on pharmacokinetic parameters. No increase in immunogenicity was found in available switching studies. Most (16/22, 72.7%) biosimilars were issued post-marketing requirements that were not directly related to immunogenicity concerns. The FDA considered the totality of evidence assessing clinical consequences of immunogenicity differences, if any. Additional information on titers and subgroup analysis may be warranted to elucidate the critical attributes of immunogenicity impact and to aid in forming cost-effective strategies for biosimilar development.

2022 in review: FDA approvals of new medicines

An accounting of all new entities approved by both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) identified the approval of 44 new entities in the year 2022. Oncology-based drugs continued to be the most popular indication for these medicines. Likewise, orphan indications encompassed more than half of new drug approvals. The number of new entities approved in 2022 declined from its peak after 5 years of more than 50 annual approvals. Likewise, the rate of consolidations slowed somewhat, among both new entries in the realm of clinical-stage developers and more established organizations.

Impact of Regulatory Policy Changes on Generic Drug Prices in the United States

Abstract: Introduction: Generic Drug User Fee Act (GDUFA) was introduced in 2012 to bring more and more generic drugs into the market in a short time through an effective review process. In the present study, the impact of the GDUFA on prices of the generic drugs has been evaluated. Materials and Methods: Various research reports related to drug costs and competition such as (i) reasons for high drug prices, (ii) FDA’s research on drug prices pre- and post- GDUFA, and (iii) the current status of generic drugs in the USA produced by different agencies including the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to understand the challenges of high drug costs have been critically evaluated. Results and Discussion: The analysis of research reports generated over some time concludes that the fall in generic drug prices has been accelerated further in recent years, with increased competition. The data analysis also reflects that during the GDUFA period, the Agency has been able to proactively address the challenges posed by brand-product companies. However, some issues remain to be addressed. Conclusion: The scope of this evaluation was limited to focus on FDA-related aspects where generic competition can be enhanced by making the generic drug approval process more efficient, continue to facilitate industry on complex products regulation to bring generic equivalents of complex products where patents expired long-time back, help resolve shortages faster and help expedite resolution of site compliance matters more quickly to assist in resuming supplies. Keywords: Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Generic Drug User Fee Act (GDUFA), USFDA, Drug Prices.

Lessons from CDER’s Quality Management Maturity Pilot Programs

Between October 2020 and March 2022, FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) completed two pilot programs to assess the quality management maturity (QMM) of drug manufacturing establishments. Mature quality systems promote proactive detection of vulnerabilities, prevent problems before they occur, and foster a culture that rewards process and system improvements. A CDER QMM program may help to advance supply chain resiliency and robustness and mitigate drug shortages. One pilot program evaluated seven establishments located within the U.S. that produce finished dosage form products marketed in the U.S. A second pilot program evaluated eight establishments located outside the U.S. that produce active pharmaceutical ingredients used in drug products marketed in the U.S. The execution of these pilot programs afforded FDA the opportunity to learn important lessons about the establishment QMM assessment process, scoring approach, assessor behaviors, and perceptions of the assessment questions, reports, and ratings. Many of the participating establishments reported that the QMM pilot assessments helped to identify their strengths, weaknesses, and new areas for improvement which they had not previously identified through internal audits or CGMP inspections. There has been a great deal of interest in the outcomes of CDER’s QMM pilot programs and this paper describes, for the first time, the lessons CDER learned and will continue to heed in the development of a QMM program.Graphical

Determination of vitamin D3 conjugated metabolites: a complementary view on hydroxylated metabolites.

Experts typically define vitamin D deficiency levels by the determination of a circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D3-calcifediol prohormone. A large part of the population is characterized by deficient vitamin D levels (calcifediol < 20 ng mL-1) despite individuals not being affected by any disorder. Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) and/or calcifediol supplementation is a common practice for vitamin D-deficient individuals as recommended by international scientific societies and official agencies. In the last few years, several studies have reported the presence of conjugated vitamin D3 metabolites, mainly glucuronidation and sulfation derivatives, although simultaneous quantitative measurements involving phase I and II vitamin D metabolites have not been carried out. A quantitative method based on tandem mass spectrometry detection is proposed here for the combined determination of phase I and phase II vitamin D3 metabolites in human serum. As phase I and phase II metabolites are preferentially ionized in different modes, a switching polarity mode was adopted to determine both groups of compounds in serum at high sensitivity levels (pg mL-1). The validation of this proposal was successfully accomplished by following the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) guidelines. Its applicability was tested in a cohort of volunteers with mostly deficient baseline levels. Considering the sulfated form of calcifediol, the sum of its concentrations showed sufficient baseline vitamin D levels in all individuals, suggesting that this could be a novel strategy for vitamin D deficiency definition. Therefore, phase II metabolites are proposed to be included when evaluating the vitamin D status since they provide more information about the overall status of the vitamin D endocrine system. Nevertheless, further studies are required to confirm the biological activity of these conjugated metabolites and the suitability of this strategy for the description of vitamin D deficiency.

FDA and industry collaboration: Identifying opportunities to further reduce reliance on nonhuman primates for nonclinical safety evaluations

The nonhuman primate (NHP) has always been a limited resource for pharmaceutical research with ongoing efforts to conserve. This is due to their inherent biological properties, the growth in biotherapeutics and other modalities, and their use in small molecule drug development. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has significantly impacted the availability of NHPs due to the immediate need for NHPs to develop COVID-19 vaccines and treatments and the China NHP export ban; thus, accelerating the need to further replace, reduce and refine (3Rs) NHP use. The impact of the NHP shortage on drug development led DruSafe, BioSafe, and the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) to discuss this issue at their 2021 annual meeting. This meeting identified areas to further the 3Rs in NHP use within the current nonclinical safety evaluation regulatory framework and highlighted the need to continue advancing alternative methods towards the aspirational goal to replace use of NHPs in the long term. Alignment across global health authorities is necessary for implementation of approaches that fall outside existing guidelines. This article captures the proceedings from this meeting highlighting current best practices and areas for 3Rs in NHP use.

Bayesian Methods in Human Drug and Biological Products Development in CDER and CBER.

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been leaders in protecting and promoting the U.S. public health by helping to ensure that safe and effective drugs and biological products are available in the United States for those who need them. The null hypothesis significance testing approach, along with other considerations, is typically used to demonstrate the effectiveness of a drug or biological product. The Bayesian framework presents an alternative approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment. This article discusses the Bayesian framework for drug and biological product development, highlights key settings in which Bayesian approaches may be appropriate, and provides recent examples of the use of Bayesian approaches within CDER and CBER.

FDA Warning Letters: A Retrospective Analysis of Letters Issued to Pharmaceutical Companies from 2010-2020.

PurposeTo launch a pharmaceutical product in the US market, approval from the FDA is required. Pharmaceutical companies undergo FDA pre-approval inspection (PAI for small molecule products) or pre-license approval (PLI for biological products) at their manufacturing sites (including contract development and manufacturing organization, testing laboratories, and packaging labelling facilities) prior to approval. After the products are approved by the FDA, surveillance inspections are performed by the FDA which are risk based as which company and which site will be inspected. The present study examines the causes of warning letters issued by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), FDA to the pharmaceutical companies after post-approval inspections.MethodsWarning letters issued from the time period 2010 to 2020 were obtained from the FDA website, and information about date of issuance, company, and type of violations was extracted for the study.ResultsPoor compliance to CGMP and misbranding were the most common reasons for the warning letters. Detailed analysis of CGMP warning letters elucidated three major types of violations, namely deficiencies in process validation, documentation practices (data integrity), and quality control corresponding to 26%, 21%, and 15% warning letters, respectively.ConclusionReview of the analysed letters demonstrates that the FDA’s major concern is over CGMP compliance. To avoid these warning letters, pharmaceutical manufacturers need to improve their quality compliance and focus on creating effective quality management systems that govern the entire manufacturing process, quality control, employee training, and documentation practice. Companies should develop an internal compliance check list and also be ready for corrective measures as and when required.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12247-022-09678-2.

Landscape Analysis of the Application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Regulatory Submissions for Drug Development From 2016 to 2021.

Landscape Analysis of the Application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Regulatory Submissions for Drug Development From 2016 to 2021.

Development and validation of a liquid chromatographic method for the determination of nitrofuran residues in fish samples

A sensitive, accurate and efficient liquid chromatographic method has been developed for determination of nitrofuran residues in a honey sample; It was found that the detection minimum for all four nitrofuran group substances is 0.03 μg / ml, the specific wavelength is 376 nm, the specificity coefficient of variation for both on one working day and one working week is &lt;2%, accuracy for solutions of three different concentrations is &lt;2 %, The accuracy of the method for all four test substances is &lt;2%, indicating the relevance of the method specificity to the criteria set for the analytical methods; The caliber graph for nitrofuran group is linear in the range 0.03 μg / ml - 1 μg / ml - 1 - 5 μg / ml and is acceptable as long as the correlation coefficient in all cases is&gt; 0.999 (&gt; 0.99); Sample preparation is satisfactory as the obtained sampling coefficient is&gt; 0.6. Thus, as a result of validation of the liquid chromatographic method developed for the quantitative determination of nitrofuran residues in the honey sample, the method was fully complied with the requirements of the Government of Georgia according to the following validation characteristics: detection minimum, specificity, accuracy, correctness and linearity. (#499, Guidance for Industry Bioanalytical Method Validation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) May 2001).

History, status, and politicization of the FDA.

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) performs an essential role in public health by ensuring, evaluating, and monitoring the safety and efficacy of drugs before they are sold in the US. Before approving new drug applications, CDER ensures that therapeutic benefits of both prescription and over-the-counter drugs (brand name and generic) provide more health benefits than the potential risks. First passed by Congress in 1992, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) allowed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to collect fees from drug manufacturers to fund new drug approvals. The law allowed the FDA to expedite drug approvals, but possibly lowered standards for safety and brought potential conflicts of interest within the FDA and pharmaceutical industry. To examine the conflicts of interest, we conducted a review using the Excerpta Medica database, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Database (PubMed), Scopus, and Google. Our search yielded Vioxx (rofecoxib) and Exondus-51 (eteplirsen) as examples of consequence when the FDA and pharmaceutical industry are too closely aligned. We further examine how the pharmaceutical industry may indirectly influence the FDA by lobbying to Congress or directly by hiring ex-FDA commissioners.

Development and validation of a headspace GC-MS method to evaluate the interconversion of impurities and the product quality of liquid hand sanitizers

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased usage of hand sanitizer products by the public to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and decrease the likelihood of acquiring the disease. The increase in demand has also led to an increase in the number of manufacturers. This work describes the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) laboratories efforts to develop tests to assess the quality of hand sanitizer products containing ethanol or isopropanol as the primary active ingredient. The products were evaluated for the active ingredient content and determination of the 12 impurities listed in the FDA Hand Sanitizer Temporary Guidance, followed by a spike recovery assay performed to verify the test results. Extensive method development was conducted including an investigation into the stability of ethanol, isopropanol, and the 12 impurities. Stability and kinetic studies confirmed the instability of acetal in acidic liquid hand sanitizer products during spike recovery assay testing. The headspace GC-MS method was validated according to ICH Q2 (R1) guidelines and the spike recovery assay was validated using three concentrations of standards for the drug product. During method application, six liquid hand sanitizer products were tested and all were determined to have ethanol or isopropanol above 70% v/v. Two liquid hand sanitizer products were determined to contain acetaldehyde as an impurity above the FDA recommended safety levels.