PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Drug Approval”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

[Approval of drugs by national and European agencies--from the viewpoint of drug approval committee A].

The German Medicines Act was issued in 1976 (1 1/2 decades after the thalidomide tragedy) and intends the installation of a non-governmental commission A, recruited of independent external experts, before a new drug is licensed. All medical and pharmaceutical disciplines are represented in this non-governmental commission A. They are elected and empowered by the minister of health for three years. The non-governmental commission A examines independently all applications of new drugs. It is part of the licensing process rather than an advisory committee. In case the vote of the non-governmental commission A differs from the regulatory authority, the latter takes the final decision but has to submit its argumentation for the different evaluation. This separation of the competence of decision making between the authority and the external experts constitutes a novum in the German legislation as well as worldwide. The discussions and votes of the non-governmental commission A are confidential. Some experiences on the work of the non-governmental commission A are dealt with in more detail.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗
PubMed1987

Trends in drug development: the 1985-86 new drug approvals.

New drug approvals in 1985 and 1986 were analyzed to determine whether any new trends have emerged in the US drug development process. Fifty-three new drugs (including three biologic products) were approved during this period; 46 met the Center for the Study of Drug Development's definition of a new chemical entity (NCE). More than 70% of the 46 approvals were granted in the fourth quarter, 50% in December alone. Four were FDA classified as 1A (important therapeutic gain), 24 as 1B (modest gain), and 16 as 1C (little or no gain); two biologics were not classified. Nine drugs were given orphan status. For the 37 non-orphan drugs, the duration of the "development phase" (IND filing to NDA submission) was 5.6 years; the "review phase" (NDA submission to approval) was 2.6 years; and the "total time" (IND filing to NDA approval) was 8.2 years. Review phase for the four 1A drugs was 2.4 years; for the 24 1B drugs, 2.6 years; for the 16 1C drugs, 2.8 years; and for the nine orphan drugs, 2.7 years. Of the 46 drugs, 33 (71.7%) were available in foreign markets prior to US approval with a mean of 5.5 years of prior marketing. Although the total of 46 NCE approvals in 1985 and 1986 represents a two-year high, there has been a dramatic shift towards fourth quarter approvals. Lengths of the development and FDA review phases are in keeping with those values for previous years.

Humans↗
PubMed2000

New drug approval times and 'therapeutic potential' in Canada, Australia, Sweden and the United States during the period 1992 to 1998.

In two previous studies, the times required to approve new drugs in Canada, Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States during the periods 1992 to 1995 and 1996 to 1998 were compared. However, during each of these two periods, only a fraction of the drugs that were approved in any of the countries were approved in all of them. Because an analysis based solely on drugs approved in all the countries would provide additional information, data from the previous studies have been used to compare drugs approved in each of Canada, Australia, Sweden and the United States during the period 1992 to 1998. In addition, applications that received a 'priority' or a 'standard' review by the United States Food and Drug Administration were analyzed separately to determine whether differences between the countries diminished for drugs considered to be of potentially greater therapeutic value. For the 87 drugs identified as being approved for marketing in all four countries during the period 1992 to 1998, approval times in Canada and Australia were not significantly different, but both Canada and Australia had significantly longer times than those of the United States and Sweden (P<0.001). Of the 87 drugs, 37 (43%) received a priority review in the United States. In both the priority and standard review categories, the Australian and Canadian median approval times were significantly longer than those in Sweden and the United States. The results demonstrate that, in general, both priority and standard new drug applications are reviewed more expeditiously in Sweden and the United States than in Canada. Canadian patients continue to experience delayed access to potentially valuable medicines.

Australia↗
PubMed1994

The new drug approvals of 1990, 1991, and 1992: trends in drug development.

Efforts to speed the development and review of new drugs have increased sharply in recent years. This report, which is the third in a series on trends in drug development, examines the new drug approvals of 1990, 1991, and 1992. During the 3-year study period, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 79 new drugs, 74 of which met the Center for the Study of Drug Development's definition of a new chemical entity (NCE). Of the 74 NCEs, 36 (49%) were considered by the FDA to represent notable therapeutic gains and were selected for "priority" review (i.e., drugs rated 1P, 1A, 1AA, and 1B), and 38 (51%) were considered to represent little or no gain and received "standard" reviews (i.e., drugs rated 1S and 1C). Investigational new drug application (IND) filing and new drug application (NDA) submission dates on all 74 drugs were obtained from responses to our manufacturer surveys as well as from FDA and public sources. The mean length of the clinical phase (IND filing to NDA submission) was 6.1 years and that of the review phase (NDA submission to approval) was 2.6 years. Of the 74 NCEs, 43 (58%) were available in foreign markets at least 1 year before U.S. approval, with a mean of 5.6 years of foreign marketing. In general, 1990 to 1992 figures are similar to those in the last half of the 1980s.

Drug Approval↗
PubMed2004

Assessing tumor-related signs and symptoms to support cancer drug approval.

Cancer causes premature death and significant, often devastating, symptoms. While prolongation of survival is an obvious end point for new cancer drug approval, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also utilized end points that evaluate patient symptoms. In this article we discuss the end points, evidence, and analyses supporting cancer drug approvals based on evaluations of tumor-related signs and symptoms. With advice from the Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) in the late 1970s and early 1980s, FDA determined that acceptable end points for cancer drug approval were survival or an improvement in the quality of a patient's life, e.g., an improvement in tumor-related symptoms. This article summarizes 15 FDA cancer drug approvals based on patient symptom assessments and/or physical signs (thought to represent symptomatic improvement) as the primary evidence of effectiveness. These include painful bone events (three cases), cosmetic improvement in Kaposi's sarcoma and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (six cases), the consequences (decreased transfusions, etc.) of long-duration responses in leukemias and lymphomas (two cases), relief of pulmonary or esophageal obstruction (two cases), and one case each of symptom benefit in pancreatic cancer (also associated with survival benefit) and pulmonary symptom benefit in lung cancer. An instructive example of an individual patient benefit end point is discussed, though it did not lead to a drug approval (the cisplatin-epinephrine gel application). Improved trial designs and analysis plans may allow greater reliance on morbidity assessments to support future cancer drug approvals. Drug sponsors are encouraged to include symptom assessments in cancer clinical trials and to perform further research to improve symptom-assessment methods. The FDA routinely meets with sponsors at End of Phase 2 Meetings to discuss drug development plans and the design of phase 3 trials. We encourage sponsors to request special protocol assessments (SPA) after meeting with the FDA to get written confirmation of the adequacy of plans for assessing cancer morbidity and quality of life, including protocols, end points, statistical analysis plans, and draft case report forms.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed1991

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.

Drugs, Investigational↗
PubMed1995

Status of drug approval processes and regulation of medications for children.

The term therapeutic orphan was coined in 1968 to describe the exclusion of infants and children from approved indications for use of the majority of drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although the 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act were designed to insure the efficacy and safety of drugs approved for human use, infants and children have largely been excluded from the protection of the law. Approximately 80% of the drugs approved by the FDA during the past 30 years have been approved with a labeling disclaimer for use by children. This high percentage is due largely to the lack of studies in children to document safety and efficacy or a failure to use available data to amend labeling to include pediatric indications. Recently, several initiatives by the FDA and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development have been implemented that promise to increase the number of drugs studied and labeled for children. These initiatives may introduce a new era of drug development for children in which pediatric investigators, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and the pharmaceutical industry join together to bring the same level of pharmacotherapeutic safety and efficacy to children that adult patients enjoy.

Child↗
PubMed2005

Impact of pharmacometrics on drug approval and labeling decisions: a survey of 42 new drug applications.

The value of quantitative thinking in drug development and regulatory review is increasingly being appreciated. Modeling and simulation of data pertaining to pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and disease progression is often referred to as the pharmacometrics analyses. The objective of the current report is to assess the role of pharmacometrics at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in making drug approval and labeling decisions. The New Drug Applications (NDAs) submitted between 2000 and 2004 to the Cardio-renal, Oncology, and Neuropharmacology drug products divisions were surveyed. For those NDA reviews that included a pharmacometrics consultation, the clinical pharmacology scientists ranked the impact on the regulatory decision(s). Of about a total of 244 NDAs, 42 included a pharmacometrics component. Review of NDAs involved independent, quantitative evaluation by FDA pharmacometricians, even when such analysis was not conducted by the sponsor. Pharmacometric analyses were pivotal in regulatory decision making in more than half of the 42 NDAs. Of the 14 reviews that were pivotal to approval related decisions, 5 identified the need for additional trials, whereas 6 reduced the burden of conducting additional trials. Collaboration among the FDA clinical pharmacology, medical, and statistical reviewers and effective communication with the sponsors was critical for the impact to occur. The survey and the case studies emphasize the need for early interaction between the FDA and sponsors to plan the development more efficiently by appreciating the regulatory expectations better.

Data Collection↗