scholarly journals COMPARISON OF HISTORY AND DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1310-1318
Author(s):  
Krupali Maniar D ◽  
◽  
John Pappan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Approval ◽  
The United States ◽  
Approval Process ◽  
Drug Approval Process

Drug Approval Process in the United States

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart O. Schweitzer ◽  
Z. John Lu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Drug Approval ◽  
The United States ◽  
Approval Process ◽  
Animal Testing ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Drug Approval Process ◽  
Major Drug

The drug approval process in any country involves a balancing of conflicting social objectives: safety and access. Faster approval leads to quicker access to potentially life-saving medicine, yet could also lead to false positives or, worse, unsafe products on the market. The United States has a widely respected but stringent and rigorous review process overseen by the Food and Drug Administration. This chapter performs an in-depth analysis of the pharmaceutical regulatory approval process in the United States. Standards, guidelines, and critical milestones for basic research, animal testing, and clinical trials in the drug R&D process are explained. It highlights major drug legislation since the beginning of the twentieth century and how this legislation has helped the FDA become the gold standard in pharmaceutical regulation worldwide. The registration pathways for generics and biosimilars are also discussed.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcome Labeling for Malignant Hematology Drugs Approved in the United States: 2011-2017

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2292-2292
Author(s):  
Marjorie E Zettler ◽  
Ethan Basch ◽  
Chadi Nabhan
Keyword(s):  
Drug Approval ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Approval Process ◽  
New Drug ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Drug Approval Process

Abstract Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), defined as any report on the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient without interpretation by anyone else, play an increasingly important role in drug development. In 2009 the FDA issued final guidance on using PRO measures to support labeling claims, to incorporate the patient perspective into the drug approval process. The 21st Century Cures Act emphasizes PROs as a differentiating element in the FDA approval process of new drugs, beyond traditional clinical outcome measures. Further, recent data has shown that intervention based on PROs can improve survival in metastatic cancers (Basch et al; 2017). The incorporation of PROs into the labeling of new drugs for malignant hematology disorders has not been studied and is the subject of this investigation. Methods: We reviewed the FDA's Novel New Drug Summaries (2011-2017) to identify drugs approved for malignant hematology indications. Drug approval packages and product labeling were accessed via the Drugs@FDA database and analyzed for PRO endpoints, measures, and labeling claims. Clinical trial designs and published study results were retrieved via the ClinicalTrials.gov website and PubMed. Results: Of 250 novel drugs approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2017, 22 (8.8%) were approved for malignant hematology indications. Interestingly, only 1 had PRO-based claims in their labeling, even though 13 of the 22 drugs (59%) collected PRO data in pivotal trials that led to their approval. Notably, the proportion of malignant hematology trials assessing PROs has increased over time, with 4 of the 5 drugs approved in 2017 for malignant hematology indications evaluating PROs in their development programs, compared with 9 of the 17 drugs approved in the preceding 6 years (80% vs. 53%). PROs evaluated included generic instruments such as the EQ-5D, and disease-specific instruments such as the EORTC QLQ-C30 (see table). Reasons cited for rejection of PRO data inclusion in drug labeling were single arm trial design, excessive missing data, statistical issues, and use of an inappropriate PRO instrument. Conclusions: While the FDA encourages PRO data submission as part of the new drug approval process, and although more than half of all malignant hematology drugs approved in the past 7 years assessed PROs during development, only 1 was able to successfully acquire labeling claims. Whether this is due to lack of PRO expertise on clinical development teams or absence of strong regulatory guidance on how best to implement PROs remains unknown and requires further research. Designing strategies to develop, validate and report PROs effectively is needed to meet regulatory requirements and enhance patients' voices in their own care. Table. Table. Disclosures Nabhan: Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership.

COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR GENERIC DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS AND THEIR REGISTRATION AS PER CTD IN EUROPE, USA AND BRAZIL

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Lincy Joseph ◽  
Mathew George ◽  
Kalpesh K Malaviya ◽  
Kalpesh K Malaviya ◽  
Bincy K Chacko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Generic Drug ◽  
Drug Approval ◽  
Evaluation Agency ◽  
Approval Process ◽  
Registration Process ◽  
Regulatory Guidelines ◽  
Food Drug Administration ◽  
Government Websites ◽  
Drug Approval Process ◽  
Regulatory Sites

This aims to compare the generic drug approval and registration process in the regulatory market of Europe, USA andBrazil. Based on the information collected from various sources such as regulatory sites, Government websites,discussion with regulatory agent, interviewing pharma professionals and literature survey from various journals, aclear picture on the generic drug approval and registration process of each country was drawn. The differentauthorities’ viz. European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) of Europe, Food Drug Administration (FDA) ofUSA and National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) of Brazil carried out the generic drug approval andregistration process in the respective countries. After analysing the various requirements for the generic drug approvalin the above stated countries, it was concluded that the regulatory guidelines of Europe and Brazil was not welldefined. But FDA gives very much well defined requirements. 

MARKETING AUTHORIZATION OF GENERIC DRUG: GLOBAL ISSUE AND CHALLENGES

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Pankaj Kashyap ◽  
Eshant Duggal ◽  
Parveen Budhwar ◽  
Jitendra Kumar Badjatya
Keyword(s):  
Generic Drug ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Drug Approval ◽  
Approval Process ◽  
Generic Medicines ◽  
Healthcare Provision ◽  
Pharmaceutical Markets ◽  
Global Issue ◽  
Drug Approval Process ◽  
High Level

Generic medicines are those whose patent protection has expired, and which may be produced by manufacturers otherthan the innovator company. Use of generic medicines has been increasing in recent years, primarily as a cost savingmeasure in healthcare provision. Generic medicines are typically 20 to 90% cheaper than originator equivalents. Theobjective is to provide a high-level description of what generic medicines are and how they differ, at a regulatory andlegislative level, from originator medicines. It describes the current and historical regulation of medicines in theworld’s two main pharmaceutical markets, in addition to the similarities, as well as the differences, between genericsand their originator equivalents including the reasons for the cost differences seen between originator and genericmedicines. This article refers to the general generic drug approval process in India, USA, and Japan. They havedifferent regulation and approval process. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document