PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Russell Katz

Publications and source records attributed to Russell Katz.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

FDA update.

This report addresses: (1) a general update of FDA activity in areas relevant to AED development; (2) an update on issues relevant to the development of AEDs in the pediatric population; and (3) an update on the Agency's approach to the evaluation of AEDs as monotherapy. FDA ACTIONS: Since January 2002, 47 Approval actions for 10 AEDs were issued, but none for a new chemical entity. Nine of the ten Approvable actions taken were relatively minor changes to existing applications. An Approvable letter was issued for Lyrica (pregabalin) for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and partial seizures in adults. The primary issue to be addressed in the face of post-marketing reports of adverse events is one of causality. The FDA has requested that sponsors search their databases for selected problems under review (e.g., suicidality). PEDIATRICS: The Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) and the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) require studies in pediatric patients for those indications granted for adults that are relevant for the pediatric population. Current FDA policy asks sponsors to undertake a development program in pediatric patients essentially analogous to that for adults. MONOTHERAPY TRIALS: Establishing the effectiveness of AEDs as monotherapy continues to be desirable, but problematic. Problems include the difficulty of performing monotherapy trials, ethical issues, designation of patients as "newly diagnosed," and endpoints. Historical controls may be acceptable if: (a) there is a consensus that it is essentially impossible to conduct controlled trials designed to demonstrate a difference between treatments; (b) there is an adequate historical database against which the seizure rate seen with the new drug can reasonably be compared; and (c) there is evidence from adequate and well-controlled trials that the treatment is effective as adjunctive therapy. FDA is Agency is reviewing analyses describing historical controls.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Biomarkers and surrogate markers: an FDA perspective.

Interest is increasing rapidly in the use of surrogate markers as primary measures of the effectiveness of investigational drugs in definitive drug trials. Many such surrogate markers have been proposed as potential candidates for use in definitive effectiveness trials of agents to treat neurologic or psychiatric disease, but as of this date, there are no such markers that have been adequately "validated," that is, shown to predict the effect of the treatment on the clinical outcome of interest. While the current law and regulations permit the United States Food and Drug Administration to base the approval of a drug product on a determination the effect of the drug on an unvalidated surrogate marker (that is, one for which it is not known that an effect on the surrogate actually predicts the desired clinical benefit), there are a number of difficulties in interpreting trials that use surrogate markers as primary measures of drug effect. In this article, the relevant regulatory context will be discussed, as well as the epistemological problems related to the interpretation of clinical trials in which unvalidated surrogate markers are used as primary outcomes.

Biomarkers↗
PubMed2004

FDA: evidentiary standards for drug development and approval.

The United States Food and Drug Administration is charged with approving drug treatments that have been shown to be safe and effective. Relevant statutes and regulations provide a legal framework for establishing safety and effectiveness that is sufficiently flexible to ensure that appropriate scientific data are collected for specific treatments targeted to particular diseases. Nonetheless, all clinical trials proposed to establish effectiveness must incorporate common elements in order for the appropriate legal and scientific standards of drug approval to be met. This article will discuss the relevant laws and regulations pertaining to the current effectiveness standard and will discuss the most important clinical trial design elements currently considered acceptable for applications for treatments of neurologic and psychiatric illness.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Regulatory aspects of vascular dementia in the United States.

There is significant interest in the development of new drugs to treat vascular dementia. However, before US approval of new drugs for this entity is possible, certain issues with regulatory implications need to be addressed. Is vascular dementia a distinct clinical syndrome with valid diagnostic criteria? Can this entity be distinguished from Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other causes of dementia? What design features are important for clinical trials in this disorder? The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened a special meeting of the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee in an attempt to answer these questions. The conclusions from this meeting indicate that vascular dementia (VaD) is a pathologically heterogeneous disorder but appears to be reasonably distinguishable from AD dementia. The NINDS-AIREN diagnostic criteria are suitable as entry criteria for vascular dementia trials. Trials should be similar in duration to AD dementia trials and should employ a dual outcome strategy (cognitive + global/functional measures). For drugs that are believed to have a disease-modifying effect, clinical trials should study specific vascular dementia subtypes and would need to employ substantially different designs from those used currently. The term "vascular dementia" may not be entirely appropriate to describe this population.

Aged↗