FDA's New Drug Safety Board Under Scrutiny

2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
JENNIFER SILVERMAN
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 333-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill M. Pulley ◽  
Jillian P. Rhoads ◽  
Rebecca N. Jerome ◽  
Anup P. Challa ◽  
Kevin B. Erreger ◽  
...  

The promise of drug repurposing is to accelerate the translation of knowledge to treatment of human disease, bypassing common challenges associated with drug development to be more time- and cost-efficient. Repurposing has an increased chance of success due to the previous validation of drug safety and allows for the incorporation of omics. Hypothesis-generating omics processes inform drug repurposing decision-making methods on drug efficacy and toxicity. This review summarizes drug repurposing strategies and methodologies in the context of the following omics fields: genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, microbiomics, phenomics, pregomics, and personomics. While each omics field has specific strengths and limitations, incorporating omics into the drug repurposing landscape is integral to its success.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond Perez ◽  
Patrick Archdeacon ◽  
Nancy Roach ◽  
Robert Goodwin ◽  
Jonathan Jarow ◽  
...  

Background/aims: The Food and Drug Administration’s final rule on investigational new drug application safety reporting, effective from 28 March 2011, clarified the reporting requirements for serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions occurring in clinical trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative released recommendations in 2013 to assist implementation of the final rule; however, anecdotal reports and data from a Food and Drug Administration audit indicated that a majority of reports being submitted were still uninformative and did not result in actionable changes. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative investigated remaining barriers and potential solutions to full implementation of the final rule by polling and interviewing investigators, clinical research staff, and sponsors. Methods: In an opinion-gathering effort, two discrete online surveys designed to assess challenges and motivations related to management of expedited (7- to 15-day) investigational new drug safety reporting processes in oncology trials were developed and distributed to two populations: investigators/clinical research staff and sponsors. Data were collected for approximately 1 year. Twenty-hour-long interviews were also conducted with Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative–nominated interview participants who were considered as having extensive knowledge of and experience with the topic. Interviewees included 13 principal investigators/study managers/research team members and 7 directors/vice presidents of pharmacovigilance operations from 5 large global pharmaceutical companies. Results: The investigative site’s responses indicate that too many individual reports are still being submitted, which are time-consuming to process and provide little value for patient safety assessments or for informing actionable changes. Fewer but higher quality reports would be more useful, and the investigator and staff would benefit from sponsors’“filtering” of reports and increased sponsor communication. Sponsors replied that their greatest challenges include (1) lack of global harmonization in reporting rules, (2) determining causality, and (3) fear of regulatory repercussions. Interaction with the Food and Drug Administration has helped improve sponsors’ adherence to the final rule, and sponsors would benefit from increased communication with the Food and Drug Administration and educational materials. Conclusion: The goal of the final rule is to minimize uninformative safety reports so that important safety signals can be captured and communicated early enough in a clinical program to make changes that help ensure patient safety. Investigative staff and sponsors acknowledge that the rule has not been fully implemented although they agree with the intention. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative will use the results from the surveys and interviews to develop new recommendations and educational materials that will be available to sponsors to increase compliance with the final rule and facilitate discussion between sponsors, investigators, and Food and Drug Administration representatives.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15037-15037
Author(s):  
S. N. Voss ◽  
A. Czarnecki

15037 Background: It is important to understand the safety profile (SP)/toxicity of new drug regimens in oncology. We compared SPs of gemcitabine (Gem) + carboplatin (Carbo) in NSCLC with Gem alone and in different combinations and also tested the methodology of drug safety profiling (DSP). Methods: Spontaneous cases for the period of 1995–2005 were reviewed on the Lilly Safety Database (LSD). DSP was used to evaluate differences in the SPs of several combinations: Gem+Carbo in NSCLC, Gem+Carbo in ovarian cancer, Gem+ cisplatin (Cis) in NSCLC, Gem+Carbo in all indications, and Gem regardless of treatment regimen, for all indications. Frequencies of adverse events (AEs) for all MedDRA System Organ Classes (SOCs) were used for each regimen. In addition, the MedDRA Preferred Terms (PTs) were reviewed to detect potential safety signals. The numbers of AEs in different SOCs were assessed as proportions of the total reports for the Gem combinations in the LSD. Results: With the exception of the Investigations SOC, the proportions of AEs for patients treated for NSCLC with Gem+Carbo were consistent with those for patients treated for NSCLC with Gem+Cis and with Gem for all indications. However, the frequency in the Investigations SOC was consistent with that reported for Gem+Carbo in all indications (14.2% v. 12.0%). A greater frequency of AEs was seen in the Gastrointestinal Disorders SOC for patients treated with Gem+Carbo for ovarian cancer compared to patients treated with Gem+Carbo for NSCLC. The review of individual PTs for Gem+Carbo did not reveal any safety signals. Conclusions: The SP of Gem+Carbo in NSCLC using DSP showed similar patterns to all other Gem combinations with only some differences due to the indication. DSP is a useful tool in assessing the new drug combination treatments in existing or new indications. [Table: see text]


2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 2111-2113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan P. Jarow ◽  
Sandra Casak ◽  
Meredith Chuk ◽  
Lori A. Ehrlich ◽  
Sean Khozin
Keyword(s):  

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
JENNIFER SILVERMAN
Keyword(s):  

BMJ ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 341 (oct06 3) ◽  
pp. c5506-c5506 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Garattini ◽  
V. Bertele'
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document