Role of Systems Modeling in Regulatory Drug Approval

Author(s):  
Vikram Sinha ◽  
Shiew-Mei Huang ◽  
Darrell R. Abernethy ◽  
Yaning Wang ◽  
Ping Zhao ◽  
...  
2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Grahn ◽  
James. E. Anderson ◽  
Timothy. J. Wallington ◽  
Mats Williander

2021 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000001034
Author(s):  
Paul J. Ford ◽  
Robert J. Fox ◽  
Mary Beth Mercer ◽  
Stacey S. Cofield

Abstract:Objective:To assess perceptions and opinions about the FDA approval process for disease modifying therapies (DMT) in people living with multiple sclerosis (MS).Methods:People living with MS were invited to complete a web-based survey of their perceptions of the FDA role and process for approval of MS medications. The survey asked about the role of the FDA, factors involved in the approval process, which voices should represent those with MS in deliberations about drug approval, and the level of comfort with uncertain safety of newly-approved therapies.Results:3533 respondents met inclusion criteria for data analysis. Most respondents appeared to understand the role of the FDA, although only half understood a fundamental FDA role: balancing the risks and benefits when considering drug approval. Significant differences were observed in many areas between those who have and have not tried DMTs. Comfort with uncertainty was associated with several factors relating to side effects and benefits thought important for the FDA to consider. Most respondents reported that people who participated in the medication’s clinical trial were particularly able to represent people living with MS.Conclusion:Perceptions regarding the FDA and views of who should represent people living with MS varied between those who have and have not tried DMT. There is variability in personal values that should be recognized and taken into account when considering regulatory responsibilities. Interventions are needed to address educational gaps regarding the mission and trustworthiness of the FDA as an oversight body.


2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-431
Author(s):  
Francisco Bombillar

This section updates readers on the latest developments in pharmaceutical law, giving information on legislation and case law on various matters (such as clinical and pre-clinical trials, drug approval and marketing authorisation, the role of regulatory agencies) and providing analysis on how and to what extent they might affect health and security of the individual as well as in industry.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 478-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarita Koride ◽  
Satyaprakash Nayak ◽  
Christopher Banfield ◽  
Mark C. Peterson

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 1210-1211
Author(s):  
Marc W. Cavaillé‐Coll ◽  
Peter P. Stein ◽  
Jacqueline A. Corrigan‐Curay
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-276
Author(s):  
Sabine Brosch ◽  
Alessandro Spina

This section updates readers on the latest developments in pharmaceutical law, giving information on legislation and case law on various matters (such as clinical and pre-clinical trials, drug approval and marketing authorisation, the role of regulatory agencies) and providing analysis on how and to what extent they might affect health and security of the individual as well as in industry.


Author(s):  
Katrine Schultz-Knudsen ◽  
Ugne Sabaliauskaite ◽  
Johan Hellsten ◽  
Anders Blaedel Lassen ◽  
Anne Vinther Morant

Abstract Background The FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative was launched to ensure the incorporation of the patient voice into drug development and evaluation. Since 2017, the FDA must publish a statement outlining patient experience data (PED) considered in the approval of new drugs. This study investigated the presence and role of PED in drug approval and translation into product label claims. Methods PED reported in approval packages of the 48 drugs approved by FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in 2019 was identified and categorized. PED in the form of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) was characterized by endpoint positioning and outcome. The product labels were analyzed for PED-related claims. Results PED was reported as relevant for 39 of 48 (81.3%) drugs approved in 2019. COAs were the predominant PED type; other PED was identified for only 9 (18.8%) drugs, and none included qualitative or patient preference studies. COAs were the only type of PED for which associated claims were identified in the product labels. 27 out of 48 (56.3%) labels contained one or more efficacy claims based on COAs; of these, patient-reported outcomes were the most prevalent with claims identified in 19 labels (39.6%). Conclusion There are ample opportunities for incorporating PED beyond COAs to inform drug development and facilitate availability of medicines tailored to patient needs. A higher level of transparency on the role of PED in regulatory decision-making and a clear path to PED-based label claims could incentivize sponsors and enable patient empowerment in treatment decisions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document