U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Review for the Emergency Physician of Approval Process and Limitations

Nadia Zuabi,Bhavesh Patel,Mark Langdorf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2016.8.31197

2016-11-01

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Author(s): Zuabi, Nadia; Patel, Bhavesh; Langdorf, Mark I

emergency medicine

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally

Xingxian Luo,Lin Huang,Xin Du,Yue Yang,Xufeng Lv,Xiaohong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00025-1

2024-01-01

Abstract:In 1992, in an effort to bring novel drugs to market more quickly and meet patient needs in a timely manner, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pioneered an accelerated approval initiative on the basis of surrogate endpoints that are reasonably predictive of clinical benefit for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases. 1 US Food and Drug AdministrationAccelerated approval program. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/nda-and-bla-approvals/accelerated-approval-programDate accessed: October 24, 2023 Google Scholar By contrast to regular approval, accelerated approval requires post-market confirmatory clinical trials to establish the clinical benefit of the drug, then a decision is made as to whether the approval should be converted to a traditional approval or whether the drug should be withdrawn from the market. 2 US Food and Drug AdministrationExpedited programs for serious conditions––drugs and biologics. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/expedited-programs-serious-conditions-drugs-and-biologicsDate accessed: October 24, 2023 Google Scholar In the past 3 years, this expedited pathway has attracted extensive criticism, including failure to complete confirmatory clinical trials in a timely manner, 3 Fashoyin-Aje LA Mehta GU Beaver JA Pazdur R The on- and off-ramps of oncology accelerated approval. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387: 1439-1442 Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar , 4 Gyawali B Kesselheim AS Ross JS The accelerated approval program for cancer drugs—finding the right balance. N Engl J Med. 2023; 389: 968-971 Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar use of surrogate endpoints (eg, progression-free survival) in confirmatory clinical trials, 5 Parikh RB Hubbard RA Wang E et al. Exposure to US cancer drugs with lack of confirmed benefit after US Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval. JAMA Oncol. 2023; 9: 567-569 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar and failure to withdraw drugs quickly from the markets when they have been shown to not have clinical benefit. 6 Akhade A Sirohi B Gyawali B Global consequences of the US FDA's accelerated approval of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 201-203 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar Concerns have also been raised that cancer drugs given accelerated approval by the FDA could lead to difficult decisions in other countries, especially in some low-income and middle-income countries that do not have their own regulatory agencies or that have weak regulatory capacity. 6 Akhade A Sirohi B Gyawali B Global consequences of the US FDA's accelerated approval of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 201-203 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar , 7 Cramer A Sørup FKH Christensen HR Petersen TS Karstoft K Withdrawn accelerated approvals for cancer indications in the USA: what is the marketing authorisation status in the EU?. Lancet Oncol. 2023; 24: e385-e394 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar
Public and health care provider attitudes, understanding, and behaviors regarding emergency use authorizations: a scoping literature review

Caroline Rains,Kathryn J Aikin,Helen W Sullivan,Bridget J Kelly,Shirley Liu,Camara Wooten,Jenna Brophy,Susana Peinado,Lauren McCormack,Sandra Crouse Quinn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20234-0

IF: 4.5

2024-10-11

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Background: Under Sect. 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, when the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary issues a declaration based on one of four types of determinations, FDA may authorize an unapproved product or unapproved uses of an approved product for emergency use. It is unclear how much the public and health care providers understand about emergency use authorizations and how that understanding influences perceptions or behavioral intentions. The current study aimed to explore consumer and health care provider perceptions of emergency use authorizations and how promotion of emergency use authorizations has been investigated in the literature. Methods: We conducted a scoping review via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL for original research published in English from January 1, 2012, through November 10, 2022. We conducted surveillance of the literature through March 2023. Results: We identified 13 studies reported in 14 publications that addressed public and health care provider attitudes, understanding, and behaviors with regard to products authorized under an emergency use authorization. We did not identify any articles describing research regarding the promotion of emergency use authorization products. Findings suggest gaps in understanding of emergency use authorizations, both for the public and health care providers. Findings also suggest the public and health care providers have concerns about safety or the lack of full FDA approval that may contribute to decreased willingness to receive treatments and vaccines under an emergency use authorization. Conclusions: Future research should explore how emergency use authorizations have been promoted and how that promotion impacts public and health care provider perceptions.
A Review on Approval Process and Regulation of Medical Devices as per US FDA and CDSCO

Kaustubh Navnath Pawar,Rohit Tukaram Gore,Samiksha Rohidas Palekar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22270/ijdra.v11i1.586

2023-03-20

International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs

Abstract:Regulatory affairs play a significant role in the pharmaceutical industry, it is “the process of gathering, reviewing, and monitoring the existing regulatory environment and creating regulatory plans and gaining a competitive edge for securing regulatory approvals required more than just acquiring facts”. A medical device is a treatment instrument that "does not work on or in the human body in a way that is primarily intended by pharmacological, immunological, or metabolic mechanisms”. In other words, a medical device is essentially any medical product, not a medicine or biological product. By the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) oversees approving drugs, conducting clinical trials, setting standards for drugs, monitoring the quality of drugs imported into the nation, and coordinating the efforts of state drug control organizations by offering professional advice to ensure uniformity in the application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a single agency, oversees the regulation of a trillion dollars’ worth of goods, or about 25 cents of every dollar spent, including 80 percent of the food supply in the US, all medical devices, and prescription drugs, animal products, cosmetics, and even the production of tobacco products. The FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health regulates companies that produce, repackage, re-label, and/or import medical devices sold in the United States (CDRH). Also, CDRH is in charge of overseeing the regulation of lasers, x-ray machines, ultrasound equipment, microwave ovens, and color televisions, among other electronic gadgets that generate radiation for both medical and non-medical purposes. The IMDR, which was published in January 2017 and became effective in January 2018, was produced by the Medical Devices and Diagnostics Division of CDSCO and is a set of structured regulations for medical devices. In February 2020, the "Medical Devices (Amendment) Regulations, 2020" were established, and they became effective in April 2020. The 2020 amendment now includes a new clause called "registration of specific medical equipment."

English Else
How Often Are Drugs Made Available Under the Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access Process Approved?

Amy E. McKee,André O. Markon,Kirk M. Chan‐Tack,Peter Lurie,Kirk M. Chan-Tack

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.960

2017-09-15

The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:In this review of individual patient expanded-access requests to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research for the period Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014, we evaluated the number of applications received and the number allowed to proceed. We also evaluated whether drugs and certain biologics obtained under expanded access went on to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Finally, we considered concerns that adverse events occurring during expanded access might place sponsors at risk for legal liability. Overall, 98% of individual patient expanded-access requests were allowed to proceed. During the study period, among drugs without a previous approval for any indication or dosage form, 24% of unique drugs (ie, multiple applications for access to the same drug were considered to relate to 1 unique drug), and 20% of expanded-access applications received marketing approval by 1 year after initial submission; 43% and 33%, respectively, were approved by 5 years after initial submission. A search of 3 legal databases and a database of news articles did not appear to identify any product liability cases arising from the use of a product in expanded access. Our analyses seek to give physicians and patients a realistic perspective on the likelihood of a drug's approval as well as certain information regarding the product liability risks for commercial sponsors when providing expanded access to investigational drugs. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s expanded-access program maintains a careful balance between authorizing patient access to potentially beneficial drugs and protecting them from drugs that may have unknown risks. At the same time, the agency wishes to maintain the integrity of the clinical trials process, ultimately the best way to get safe and effective drugs to patients.
A comprehensive review on registration requirements for Drug Approval in India, South Africa and US

Veer J. Patel,Dasharath M. Patel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22270/ijdra.v9i1.456

2021-03-17

International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs

Abstract:The drug approval process is country-specific. The regulatory framework of all the national regulatory agencies differ from one another in terms of administration and product specific guidelines for registration of drug and drug products in a particular country. Every national regulatory authority provides regulatory guidelines for drug or drug product registration and the pharmaceutical industries which rely upon these guidelines prepare drug applications along with all the required administrative, non-clinical and clinical data in the form of a technical dossier which is known as Common Technical Document. This Dossier is prepared either in an electronic format or in the paper submission format. This review focuses on the comparative study of the registration requirements for getting a drug approval in India, South Africa and United States of America. The significant differences between the technical requirements of these three markets have been discussed in detail.

English Else
FDA's perspectives on cardiovascular devices

Eric A Chen,Sonna M Patel-Raman,Kathryn O'Callaghan,Matthew G Hillebrenner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-009-9096-7

Abstract:The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision process for approving or clearing medical devices is often determined by a review of robust clinical data and extensive preclinical testing of the device. The mission statement for the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is to review the information provided by manufacturers so that it can promote and protect the health of the public by ensuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices deemed appropriate for human use (Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, Section 903(b)(1, 2(C)), December 31, 2004; accessed December 17, 2008 http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm). For high-risk devices, such as ventricular assist devices (VADs), mechanical heart valves, stents, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, pacemakers, and defibrillators, the determination is based on FDA's review of extensive preclinical bench and animal testing followed by use of the device in a clinical trial in humans. These clinical trials allow the manufacturer to evaluate a device in the intended use population. FDA reviews the data from the clinical trial to determine if the device performed as predicted and the clinical benefits outweigh the risks. This article reviews the regulatory framework for different marketing applications related to cardiovascular devices and describes the process of obtaining approval to study a cardiovascular device in a U.S. clinical trial.
Understanding the Regulatory Pathways Used to Develop, Evaluate, Authorize, and Approve New Drugs and Vaccines in the United States

Joseph B Domachowske

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpids/piae036

2024-07-12

Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society

Abstract:Abstract 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.

pediatrics,infectious diseases
Understanding the FDA Device Approval Process in FPMRS

Nathan Cheng,Debra Fromer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-021-00630-7

2021-06-22

Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports

Abstract:<span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec1"><h3 class="a-plus-plus">Purpose of Review</h3><p class="a-plus-plus">This review will provide an understanding of the FDA device approval process, particularly with respect to medical devices used in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.</p></span><span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec2"><h3 class="a-plus-plus">Recent Findings</h3><p class="a-plus-plus">Bringing a novel medical device to the market through the FDA regulatory process can be broken down into four steps: device classification, selecting and preparing premarket-submission regulatory pathways, FDA review of premarket-submissions, and postmarket regulatory controls.</p></span><span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec3"><h3 class="a-plus-plus">Summary</h3><p class="a-plus-plus">While the FDA regulatory process can be daunting, physicians and surgeons have the responsibility toward unmet needs of patients and should be at the helm of medical device innovation.</p></span>

English Else
Evolution of FDA's NDA/BLA review process under PDUFA

姚立新,李茂忠,董江萍,邵颖,郑强

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective: The evolution of FDA's NDA/BLA review process is analyzed through the retrospective analysis of the performance goals of PDUFA I to PDUFA V.Methods: Analyze the evolution of FDA's NDA/BLA review process,particularly the expedition of the NDA/BLA review by ensuring the safety to meet the unmet medical need and improve the availability of the drug products through the analysis of the PDUFA I-V,the performance goals of PDUFA,the reports of the congress,the Agency and the industry.Results: The evolution of FDA's NDA/BLA review process under PDUFA has significantly expedited the time for drug approval and reversed the drug lag.Conclusion: The evolution of FDA's NDA/BLA review process under PDUFA is based on science,rational use of the external and internal resources,improving of the reviewing staffing and information support system.The evolution of FDA's NDA/BLA review process under PDUFA also sees the improvement in the communication and interaction with the stakeholders,and the emphases attached on the risk-based post-marketing surveillance through the life cycle of the drug products.The adjustment of the policy by the enacting of PDUFA periodically can join the forces of the Agency,the industry,and the stakeholders to improve the consistency,efficiency,and predictability of the NDA/BLA review,thus advance innovation and the industry and benefit the stakeholders.
Physicians’ Perspectives On FDA Regulation Of Drugs And Medical Devices: A National Survey

Sanket S Dhruva,Aaron S Kesselheim,Steven Woloshin,Robin Z Ji,Zhigang Lu,Jonathan J Darrow,Rita F Redberg,Sanket S. Dhruva,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Robin Z. Ji,Jonathan J. Darrow,Rita F. Redberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2023.00466

2024-01-01

Health Affairs

Abstract:Physicians' knowledge of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval processes is important in informing clinical decisions and patient discussions. Among a randomly selected national sample of 509 internists, cardiologists, and oncologists, 41 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's drug approval process, and 17 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's medical device approval process. Nearly all physicians thought that randomized, blinded trials that met primary endpoints should be very important factors required to secure regulatory approval. Also, nearly all physicians thought that the FDA should revoke approval for accelerated-approval drugs or breakthrough devices that did not show benefit in postapproval studies. Our findings suggest that physicians commonly lack familiarity with drug and medical device regulatory practices and are under the impression that the data supporting FDA drug and high-risk device approvals are more rigorous than they often are. Physicians would value more rigorous premarket evidence, as well as regulatory action for drugs and devices that do not demonstrate safety and effectiveness in the postmarket setting.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Annual update: drugs, diagnostics and devices

Candace Berardinelli,Deborah Kupecz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006205-200303000-00007

Abstract:As NPs continue to play an important role in health care as administers of prescriptions, the value of reviewing the latest Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for new drugs and devices is immeasurable. In 2002, the FDA approved several new drugs and devices, as well as monitored previously approved drugs for adverse reactions and untoward events. This article provides a brief review of relevant primary care topics.
Clarifying the Discussion Points in New Drug Application Reviews for Approval in Japan by a Government Advisory Council

Yasuyuki Hattori,Hideki Hanaoka,Yoshiaki Uyama

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017696271

2017-07-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: In Japan, the Pharmaceutical Affairs and Food Sanitation Council (PAFSC) of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare conducts discussions during the final stages of drug application reviews based on reports from the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Any disagreements or points of contention raised during these discussions can result in delays to drug approval. It is therefore important to characterize the points of discussion in the PAFSC meetings to optimize the process and enable more efficient drug approval reviews in Japan.METHODS: We investigated the recorded minutes of PAFSC meetings concerning 229 drug applications (comprising 164 new drug applications and 65 supplemental applications) between fiscal years 2012 and 2014. The discussion points were characterized according to their main topics, and the frequency of each topic was examined.RESULTS: Clinical trials were the most frequent topic of discussion. Issues concerning package inserts were also prominent because many required reconsiderations and follow-up after council meetings. In particular, additional precautions and further clarification regarding drug indications and dosage were major points for reconsideration and follow-up.CONCLUSIONS: The review process may be improved if the points identified in this study are taken into consideration during the drug review process by the PMDA.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
Providing Patients with Critical or Life-Threatening Illnesses Access to Experimental Drug Therapy: A Guide to Clinical Trials and the US FDA Expanded Access Program

Marjorie A. Speers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-019-00274-3

2019-03-19

Pharmaceutical Medicine

Abstract:This review article considers two alternative options to standard treatment for desperately ill patients when standard treatments are no longer working: clinical trials and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) expanded access program. The article describes the history of drug regulation in the United States, pointing out that the clinical research process to demonstrate safety and efficacy has lengthened the time to market approval. The author describes the advantages and disadvantages of clinical trials and of expanded access primarily for patients, with a discussion of the FDA’s expanded access program, including descriptions of single patient, intermediate-size patient populations and widespread treatment uses. The advantages of the FDA’s expanded access program over the new federal right-to-try law are also discussed. Alternative clinical designs are introduced into consideration as a way to improve the clinical trial process, reduce the time to market approval and perhaps interest more patients in enrolling in trials.

English Else
Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy

Daniel Tobias Michaeli,Thomas Michaeli,Sebastian Albers,Tobias Boch,Julia Caroline Michaeli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01639-x

2023-11-14

The European Journal of Health Economics

Abstract:Abstract Background Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. Objectives This study reviews the FDA’s five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price. Methods We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. Results Expedited approval reduces new drugs’ time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as “ breakthroughs ”, are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US. Conclusion Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.

health policy & services,economics
Evaluation of a pharmacist-led workflow for the FDA Expanded Access Program

Blake T Barta,Ann McGee,Beth Mc Lendon Arvik,Tyler A Vest

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxae088

2024-03-25

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

Abstract:Abstract Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose This project aimed to characterize the resources necessary for pharmacists to support the required steps for obtaining and handling investigational drugs outside of a study protocol in the individual patient and intermediate-size population Expanded Access Program (EAP) processes. The second aim was to characterize the types of EAP requests received. Summary This retrospective, single-center, observational study was performed by reviewing EAP requests initiated at Duke University Hospital (DUH) between August 1, 2017, and February 11, 2023. The annualized cost of unreimbursed EAP study services was projected to be approximately $196,500 at DUH for 2023. Of the 168 EAP requests submitted after the institutional policy requiring pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee approval was established, 162 (96.4%) were approved by the P&T committee. Conclusion Given the lack of published information on a pharmacist-led workflow related to EAP services, this study sought to share DUH’s process for managing EAP requests. As there is no mechanism for reimbursement of EAP services, they can be difficult to manage given the labor resources required. Further work is needed to recoup unreimbursed investigational drug service labor costs to ensure compassionate use programs can be implemented in a manner that is financially sustainable for a health system.

pharmacology & pharmacy
FDA Warning Letters: A Retrospective Analysis of Letters Issued to Pharmaceutical Companies from 2010–2020

Anurag S. Rathore,Yuexia Li,Hemlata Chhabra,Akshat Lohiya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12247-022-09678-2

2022-08-17

Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation

Abstract:To 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.

pharmacology & pharmacy
International variation in approval of medicines

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/dtb.2023.000011

2023-03-30

Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin

Abstract:Overview of: Pham C, Le K, Draves M, et al . Assessment of FDA-approved drugs not recommended for use or reimbursement in other countries, 2017-2020. JAMA Intern Med 2023. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.6787. [Epub ahead of print 13 Feb 2023].

English Else
Association of Expedited Review Programmes with Postmarketing Safety Events of New Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Between 2007 and 2017

Xingyue Zhu,Bao Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058843

IF: 3.006

2022-01-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective To explore the associations between the risks of postmarketing safety events of new drugs and the four expedited programmes of priority review, accelerated approval, fast track and breakthrough therapy established by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and to investigate whether multiple uses of expedited programmes, and the combinations of expedited programmes with orphan designation, were relevant to different safety profiles. Design Cohort study. Setting USA. Participants All new drugs approved by the FDA between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2017, followed up until 10 April 2021. Outcome measures Safety events included safety-related withdrawal, new boxed warning, drug safety communication, postapproval risk evaluation mitigation strategy and safety-related labelling changes. The duration from marketing approval to the occurrence of a safety event was measured. Method Cox models were performed to determine the factors related to the time-to-safety event. Results The FDA approved 338 new drugs between 2007 and 2017, among which 53.6% (181) were under expedited review and 32.2% (109) received two or more expedited programmes. It took median time of 1.75 years (IQR 1.10–2.93) and 2.31 years (IQR 1.33–4.21), respectively, for new drugs to be observed of their first event and first serious event. The raised risk for first safety event was found to associate with breakthrough therapy (adjusted HR 1.83; 95% CI 1.21 to 2.77; p=0.004), and with the combination of accelerated approval with orphan designation (adjusted HR 2.84; 95% CI 1.12 to 7.23; p=0.028). Triple or more use of expedited programmes correlated with higher risk for first serious event (adjusted HR 4.16; 95% CI 1.69 to 10.22; p=0.002). Conclusions The increased risks of the breakthrough therapies, accelerated orphan drugs and triple or more use of expedited programmes indicated the necessity for intensive postmarketing risk surveillance.
Comparison of regulatory approval system for medicines in emergency among Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and China

Kazuki Edo,Masahide Kawano,Hideki Maeda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309992

IF: 3.7

2024-09-16

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The approval of pharmaceuticals in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a global concern, and during emergencies, emergency approval or authorization systems that enable the rapid use of unapproved drugs to maintain national health are essential. However, there is limited research comparing these systems across countries and their effects. This cross-sectional study examined such systems in Japan (JP), Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), and China (CN) for pharmaceuticals (n = 23) authorized under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States (US) between December 2019 to July 2023. As of the end of July 2023, JP had granted approval or permission for 14 drugs (60.9%), EU for 14 (60.9%), UK for 12 (52.2%), and CN for three (13.0%). An examination of the developmental status of the 23 drugs revealed that JP had 6 drugs (26.1%), the EU had 3 drugs (8.7%), the UK had 5 drugs (21.7%), and CN had 16 drugs (69.6%) yet to be developed. The US had significantly more granted permissions and developed drugs, while CN the least. The UK had a significantly shorter period for approval than the US and the shortest overall. The EU had the shortest period from the issuance of EUA to approval dates. Although not statistically significant, JP had the longest duration until unapproved drugs could be used. Pharmaceuticals granted usage permission under the EUA in JP, the EU, and the UK were developed or on the market in over 70% of cases, whereas in CN, more than two-thirds were yet to be developed. This suggests that CN may not actively utilize pharmaceuticals from other countries for COVID-19 treatment and may rely on its own. When comparing the emergency approval and permission systems of each country, the most significant difference was in the type of system granting approval.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Review for the Emergency Physician of Approval Process and Limitations

Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally

Public and health care provider attitudes, understanding, and behaviors regarding emergency use authorizations: a scoping literature review

A Review on Approval Process and Regulation of Medical Devices as per US FDA and CDSCO

How Often Are Drugs Made Available Under the Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access Process Approved?

A comprehensive review on registration requirements for Drug Approval in India, South Africa and US

FDA's perspectives on cardiovascular devices

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

Understanding the FDA Device Approval Process in FPMRS

Evolution of FDA's NDA/BLA review process under PDUFA

Physicians’ Perspectives On FDA Regulation Of Drugs And Medical Devices: A National Survey

Annual update: drugs, diagnostics and devices

Clarifying the Discussion Points in New Drug Application Reviews for Approval in Japan by a Government Advisory Council

Providing Patients with Critical or Life-Threatening Illnesses Access to Experimental Drug Therapy: A Guide to Clinical Trials and the US FDA Expanded Access Program

Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led workflow for the FDA Expanded Access Program

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

International variation in approval of medicines

Association of Expedited Review Programmes with Postmarketing Safety Events of New Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Between 2007 and 2017

Comparison of regulatory approval system for medicines in emergency among Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and China